New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday directed Patanjali Ayurved Ltd co-founder Baba Ramdev and managing director Acharya Balkrishna to personally appear before it and explain why no reply was filed on a contempt notice issued against them for showing misleading advertisements on medicinal cures.
A bench of Justice Hima Kohli and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah observed that neither Ramdev nor Balakrishna had filed any response to the show cause notice issued to them by the court on misleading claims made in the advertisements of their medicines.
The court said they should personally appear within two weeks to explain their stand.
On February 27, the apex court imposed a ban on the advertisements circulated by Patanjali claiming a cure for some incurable diseases, which is not permitted under the rules as their authenticity was not proven.
The bench further recorded that the medicines claimed to cure certain diseases as per Ramdevs company Patanjalis version without any empirical evidence.
The court even noted that claims made by Baba Ramdevs company had taken the country for a ride, as those were misleading.
The matter relates to a plea filed by the Indian Medical Association (IMA) alleging that a smear campaign was carried out by Baba Ramdev and his company against the COVID-19 vaccination and modern medicine.
In November last year, the court also directed Patanjali not to publish false advertisements in the future.
Patanjali had then undertaken not to publish advertisements making false claims about its products and targeting modern medicines and vaccinations, but continued to do so, the court was told today.
As senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi appeared before the Court on behalf of Ram Dev and his company, the bench noted that the appearance of senior counsels on Ram Devs behalf showed that they were aware of the show cause being issued in their names.
Noting that the Central government had also not tackled the issue of misleading advertisements, the court directed Baba Ramdev and others to personally appear before the court and reply to the show cause notice.
(With UNI inputs)
