This is not the first time that Patanjali’s products and claims have come under scrutiny but this is for the first time that its leadership is being held accountable by the highest court of India.
It took fewer than ten hearings at the Supreme Court, four of which were spent on sorting the technical issues, for the mighty Patanjali Ayurved, an influential Indian multinational conglomerate holding company, to come down on its knees, with its owner Ramdev and Balkrishna personally appearing in front of the Supreme Court earlier last week and tendering an unconditional apology for disregarding the apex court’s directives that it had laid down last year prohibiting Patanjali from propagating misleading advertisements regarding its products. The company’s promoters and owners are regarded highly by politicians cutting across party lines.
The rebuke from the Supreme Court on 2 April to the duo and the company stems from the contempt notice that the court had issued on 27 February against them for publishing advertisements of products in violation of the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954 and its Rules, despite an undertaking given to contrary to the court in November.
During the February hearing, the bench of Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah had said Patanjali had violated the assurance that they had given to the Supreme Court on 21 November 2023 of refraining from advertising or branding their products as “permanent relief” for diseases like obesity, blood pressure, asthma, etc, in violation of the 1954 Act.
“What do you mean by ‘permanent relief’? There are only two types of permanent relief. One, the person dies. Two, the person is cured. There is no third ‘permanent relief’,” Justice Amanullah had asked while addressing the lawyers for Patanjali which included celebrated and highly paid lawyer Mukul Rohatgi.
The Supreme Court had also come down heavily on the Central government for not acting against Patanjali. Justice Amanullah asked the Additional Solicitor General K.M. Nataraj, whether it had taken any action on the issue of Patanjali advertisements violating the law.
“The entire country has been taken for a ride. And you shut your eyes? What did you do for two years? The Act itself said that it (misleading advertisements) was prohibited. You should have taken urgent action… This is an unfortunate situation,” Justice Amanullah told the government law officer.
During the hearing, the court pointed out that it had on 21 November directed the company not to make any “casual statements” to the print or electronic media about the efficacy of their medicinal products or indulge in any disparaging statements about other disciplines of medicine like allopathy.
However, less than hours after the order, a press conference was held by Baba Ramdev, on 22 November.
When the court asked how exactly Baba Ramdev was associated with Patanjali, the company’s lawyer responded that he was a yoga guru and a sanyasi, which led to Justice Amanullah responding that the court was not bothered by “who was who” while adding that the order of the top court has been violated by him and others.
On 27 February, the Bench had directed the company and its managing director to file their replies to the contempt notice within two weeks while restraining Patanjali from advertising or branding medicinal products as cures for diseases or disorders. The court had also cautioned the stakeholders or officers in Patanjali from making any statements adverse to any system of medicine in the print or electronic media in any form.
The case goes back to 12 August 2022 when the Indian Medical Association (IMA) had approached the court against a Patanjali advertisement titled “Misconceptions spread by allopathy: Save yourself and the country from the misconceptions spread by pharma and medical industry.”
The IMA, in its petition, had accused Patanajli of consistently disseminating misinformation to denigrate allopathy, which it deemed as a deliberate and ongoing campaign and making exaggerated claims about the efficacy of its drugs, purportedly based on scientific evidence, which contradicted regulations banning such advertisements in the country.
According to the IMA, these statements violated both the Drugs and Other Magical Remedies Act, 1954 (DOMA) and the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (CPA).
It was almost after one year of the case being listed and six hearings being done, of which the initial four were spent on sorting technical deficiencies and adjournments, a Supreme Court bench on 21 November 2023, comprising Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Prashant Kumar Mishra cautioned Patanjali against advertising permanent cures and threatened to levy a penalty of Rs 1 crore for each product making such claims.
However, Patanjali and Ramdev, despite their assurances to the court, did a press conference praising his products which was followed by advertisements appearing in mainstream media in December 2023 and January 2024.
When the case came up for hearing again on 27 February 2024, the IMA through its lawyer, P.S. Patwalia apprised the court that despite the assurances given in the last hearing by Sajan Poovayya, the lawyer of Patanjali, and in clear violation of the Supreme Court order, Patanjali had continued to make incorrect assertions and misrepresentations in respect of its various products in the market by describing the said products as a permanent solution to such ailments that have been specifically listed in the Schedule appended to the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act1, 1954 and the Schedule appended to the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Rules2, 1955.
According to the Supreme Court, apart from considering the arguments raised by IMA, it had also received an anonymous letter dated 15 January, 2024, addressed to the Chief Justice of India with copies marked to two other judges showing how Patanjali had issued the advertisements and did a press conference even after the SC order of 21 November 2023. The anonymous letter dated 15 January 2024, was taken on record by the Supreme Court.
The court was apprised that among other things, Patanjali had acted against Section 3(d) of the 1954 Act that prohibits advertisement of certain products for treatment of certain diseases and disorders, including thereof diabetes, heart diseases, high or low blood pressure, obesity and asthma.
On 19 March 2024, the court again came down on both Patanjali and Government of India and while issuing a show cause to Balkrishna and Ramdev as to why contempt of court proceedings should not be initiated against them for violating the order dated 21 November 2023, it ordered the personal presence of Balkrishna and Ramdev. It further wrote in its order that it was not satisfied by the affidavit filed by the Union of India and it shall pass appropriate orders on the next date of hearing while refraining from passing any further orders only to await the affidavit stated to have been filed by the Union of India.
On 2 April, the court stated that it was not satisfied by the explanation offered by Patanjali and its owner and gave one last opportunity of one week to file their reply/appropriate affidavits and ordered the personal presence of the top leadership of Patanjali in the court.
While commenting on a detailed affidavit running into 42 pages that has been filed on behalf of the Ministry of Ayush, Union of India, the court said that one of the documents that is material to the case has not been filed by the Union of India and asked GoI to file a detailed reply.
The Supreme Court had listed the next date for hearing for 10 April on which it will decide whether to proceed with the contempt against Ramdev and Balkrishna or accept the reply that they will file.
This is not the first time that Patanjali’s products and claims have come under scrutiny but this is for the first time that its leadership is being held accountable by the highest court of India.
In 2017, Patanjali’s Divya Amla Juice, recommended for individuals with diabetes, and Shivlingi Beej were deemed of “substandard quality” by the Ayurveda and Unani Office in Haridwar, a Right to Information reply had revealed. In December 2022, Nepal’s drug regulator blacklisted Patanjali’s Divya Pharmacy for failing to adhere to WHO’s drug manufacturing standards.
In December 2016, a local court in Haridwar slapped five production units of Patanjali Ayurved with a fine of Rs 11 lakh for “misbranding and putting up misleading advertisements” of their products. Patanjali Ayurved was found guilty of misbranding as the products being shown by the company as produced at its own units were in fact manufactured somewhere else, the court said. The case was filed in the court against the company in 2012 by the District Food Safety Department after samples of mustard oil, salt, pineapple jam, besan and honey produced by Patanjali had failed quality tests at Rudrapur laboratory.
Emails sent to Patanjali for its response on the matter did not elicit any response till the time this report went to press.