Apology not enough, you should suffer: Supreme Court to Ramdev

 Apology not enough, you should suffer: Supreme Court to Ramdev 'Tendering apology is not enough. You should suffer the consequences for violating the court's order. We do not want to be generous in this case'

Ramdev : File Photo

R. Balaji, TT, New Delhi, 11.04.24 : The Supreme Court on Wednesday rejected the second "unconditional apology” tendered by Patanjali founders Ramdev and Balkrishna in the contempt proceedings relating to alleged misleading advertisements claiming permanent cure for incurable ailments.

A bench of Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah warned Uttarakhand State Drug Licensing Authority officials that it would “rip you apart piece by piece” for being in “cahoots” with Patanjali and failing to take action against the company for continuing with the misleading ads since 2018.

The bench took exception to Ramdev and Patanjali MD Balkrishna attempting to evade personal appearance before the court by claiming to travel abroad through an application filed on March 30 although the tickets were booked for March 31. The court indicated that this amounted to perjury.

“The fact remains that the date when the affidavits were sworn (March 30), there was no such ticket in existence. Therefore, the assumption is that the respondents were trying to wriggle out of their personal appearance,” the bench said.

The court was dealing with a contempt petition filed by the Indian Medical Association (IMA) against Patanjali for persisting with misleading ads in the media after having assured the top court in November that it would desist from indulging in such practices.

“Apology is only on paper. Their (Ramdev and Balkrishna) back is against the wall. We decline to accept this. We consider it a deliberate violation of undertaking. Be ready for something next to rejection of affidavit,” Justice Kohli, heading the bench, told senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi appearing for Patanjali.

The duo had earlier tendered an unconditional apology, which was rejected by the bench. The court had asked them to file a fresh affidavit. However, when the affidavit was filed on Wednesday, the bench refused to take note of it, saying it was not convinced.

“Tendering apology is not enough. You should suffer the consequences for violating the court's order. We do not want to be generous in this case,” the bench said, adding: “Why should we not treat your apology with the same disdain as shown to the court undertaking? We are not convinced.”

Rohatgi said the contemnors were willing to tender a public apology, but the court refused to buy the argument.

The court also minced no words in expressing its strong indignation at the conduct of the Uttarakhand State Licensing Authority to take action against Ramdev and Patanjali.

“We will rip you apart piece by piece. You have done nothing but push files and sit pretty. It seems you either did not know about the violations or were in cahoots with Patanjali. You were hand in glove with them. Your apology is not worth the paper on which it is written,” the Supreme Court said.

The court directed that all officers of the rank of joint director in the Uttarakhand State Licensing Authority from 2018 till date shall file affidavits to explain why they had failed to take action against Patanjali Ayurveda under the Drugs and Other Magic Remedies (objectionable advertisements) Act, 1954.

“We are appalled to note that except for pushing the file, the authorities within the state licensing authority have done nothing. For these four-five years, the state licensing authority has remained in deep slumber. Why should we not think that you are in cahoots with the contemnor respondents? You are keeping your eyes shut deliberately,” the bench remarked.

It added: “We will make you abettor in that crime. This is just the beginning.”

When the counsel for Patanjali pleaded for mercy, the court asked: "What about all those faceless people who have been consuming this medicine in good faith which has been sold and touted as the remedy and a cure for diseases which are incurable under the Act?”