"Not Satisfied With Centre's Response": Supreme Court On Patanjali Ad Row

Rejecting another set of apologies filed by Patanjali founders Ramdev and Balkrishna for the company's misleading ads, the Supreme Court today said "we are not blind" and that "it does not want to be generous" in this case. The court also noted that it is not satisfied with the Centre's reply in the matter.

"The apology is on paper. Their back is against the wall. We decline to accept this, we consider it a deliberate violation of undertaking," the bench of Justice Hima Kohli and Justice A Amanullah said.

At the beginning of the proceedings, the bench noted that Ramdev and Balkrishna sent their apologies to the media first. "Till the matter hit the Court, the contemnors did not find it fit to send us the affidavits. They sent it to the media first, till 7.30 pm yesterday it was not uploaded for us. They believe in publicity clearly," Justice Kohli said.

Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the Patanjali founders, said he cannot speak for the registry and that the apologies had been served.

As he read out the affidavites, Justice Amanullah said, "You are defrauding the affidavit. Who drafted it, I am surprised." Mr Rohatgi said there was a "lapse", to which the court replied, "very small word".

Justice Amanullah asked if the apology is "even heartfelt". "What else needs to be said, my lords, we will. He is not (a) professional litigant. People make mistakes in life!," Mr Rohatgi replied. "Even after our orders? We don't want to be so generous in this case," the bench said.

The court said a message needs to go out to the society at large. "(This is) not just about one FMCG but violation of the law. Look at your replies to state authority when they asked you to withdraw, you said HC said no coercive steps against us. We are making it a part of your conduct, larger picture is your conduct with the public at large but saying it is in good faith."

The court then turned to the Uttarakhand government and questioned why licensing inspectors did not act and that three officers should be suspended at once.

"In 2021, the ministry wrote to the Uttarakhand licensing authority against a misleading advertisement. In response, the company gave a response to the licensing authority. However, the authority let off the company with a warning. The 1954 Act does not provide for warning and there is no provision for compounding the offence," the court said.

"This has happened 6 times, back and forth back and forth, the licensing inspector remained quiet. There is no report by the officer. The person appointed subsequently acted the same. All those three officers should be suspended right now," it said, adding that the licensing authority was "in cahoots with the contemnors".