One should not need a microscope to see an apology, SC tells Patanjali
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Tuesday questioned yoga guru and entrepreneur Ramdev and Patanjali’s managing director Balkrishna on the size and visibility of an apology issued by Patanjali for previous misleading advertisements, even as it broadened its judicial scrutiny into deceptive advertisements to include “alleged unethical practices” among doctors practising modern medicine.
“Is the apology the same size as your advertisements? When you issue an apology, it does not mean that we have to see it by a microscope...it does not have to only be in papers but is meant to be read...somebody in the dock has to come clean,” a bench of justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah remarked, highlighting the possible discrepancy in the scale between Patanjali’s widespread misleading advertisements and their comparatively inconspicuous apology published in newspapers.
Seeking to wriggle out of the contempt charge for disobeying previous court orders, senior counsel Mukul Rohatgi and Bal
We must clarify that we aren’t here to gun for a particular company… Our endeavour is to act in the public interest against companies that are misleading the public.
SUPREME COURT
bir Singh, appearing for Ramdev and Balkrishna, assured the court that Patanjali would issue another, more prominently displayed apology in the media within a week.
Rohatgi also informed the bench that Patanjali has issued an apology in 67 publications, which, along with a fresh apology to be printed within a week, will be presented to the bench before the next hearing on April 30.
Responding, the bench said: “Cut the actual newspaper clippings and keep them handy. For you to photocopy by enlarging, it may not impress us. We want to see the actual size of the ad.”
The public apology issued by Patanjali in various publications between April 22 and 23 stated: “We tender our heartfelt apology for the mistakes committed in publishing ads and holding press conferences despite the assurances by our counsel. We are committed not to repeat this mistake.”
During the hearing, the bench also emphasised that its actions were not targeted solely at Ramdev and his enterprise, Patanjali, but were motivated by broader concerns for public welfare.
“We must clarify that we aren’t here to gun for a particular company or authority. Our endeavour is to act in the public interest against FMCGS (fast-moving consumer goods) and drug companies that have been misleading the public. It’s a part of the process of the rule of law,” it said.
The court decided to widen the scope to encompass the practitioners of modern medicine who are accused of prescribing unnecessary and expensive medicines.