Patanjali, Acharya Balkrishna apologise to Supreme Court over misleading ads

Patanjali Ayurved and its Managing Director Acharya Balkrishna on Wednesday tendered an unconditional apology before the Supreme Court over its advertisements targeting evidence-based medicine [Indian Medical Association & Anr v. Union of India and Ors]..In an affidavit filed before the apex court, Balkrishna stated that his company will not repeat such ads which were only meant to promote Ayurveda."The Deponent will ensure that such advertisements are not issued in the future. By way of clarification, not as a defense, the Deponent begs to submit that its intention is only to exhort the citizens of this country to lead a healthier life by consuming products of the Respondent No. 5 including products for lifestyle ailments through the use age old literature and materials supplementing and backed by ayurvedic research," the affidavit said. .The affidavit came in response to a plea filed by the Indian Medical Association (IMA) alleging a smear campaign by Patanjali and its founder and self-styled yoga guru, Baba Ramdev against the COVID-19 vaccination drive and modern medicine.Patanjali in its affidavit said that it has the highest regard for rule of law and is duty-bound to follow the same. It added that its media wing was not aware of court proceedings barring such ads. "The Deponent regrets that the advertisement in question which was meant to contain only general statements inadvertently included the offending sentences. The same was bona-fide and added in routine course by the media department," the affidavit said. Pertinently, the multinational company said that it has scientific data with clinical research conducted in Ayurveda, which was not available at the time of enactment of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act of 1940 and its ayurvedic products are backed by scientific research. "The Deponent's only quest is for a better and healthier life for each and every citizen and to reduce the burden on the countries healthcare infrastructure by providing holistic, evidence based solutions for lifestyle related medical complications through the usage of age old traditional approach of Ayurveda and Yoga. In fact, the idea was to promote the ayurvedic products which are based on age old literature/material backed by scientific research," it was submitted. .The Supreme Court had in November 2023 threatened to impose costs of ₹1 crore per false claim made in each advertisement for Patanjali Ayurved products that claim to cure diseases.The Court had then stressed that the issue could not be reduced to a debate between allopathy/modern medicine and Ayurvedic products.The top court had also directed Patanjali not to publish false advertisements in the future, and to avoid making such claims to the media, as ultimately a solution was needed regarding misleading medical advertisements.However, since such ads were published even after that, the Court had on February 27 this year imposed a temporary ban on advertisements of the Patanjali Ayurved's medicines and also issued contempt of court notices to the company and Balkrishna for making misleading claims.The top court had lamented that Patanjali has been taking the country for a ride by falsely claiming that its medicines cure certain diseases despite no empirical evidence for the same.It had also pulled up Central government for not tackling misleading advertisements despite the present petition against the same having been filed in 2022.It had afurther ordered that Patanjali should not make adverse statements or claims against other forms of medicine..When the matter was subsequently taken up on March 19, the Court directed Baba Ramdev and Balkrishna to be personally present before it after the latter failed to file a reply to a show-cause notice in the contempt proceedings initiated against Patanjali Ayurved for its misleading advertisements. A Bench of Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah had remarked that the duo were prima facie in violation of Sections 3 and 4 of the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954.The matter is slated to be heard on April 2.