Why did Centre turn a blind eye to Patanjali’s ‘COVID cure’ claim, asks SC
The Supreme Court on Tuesday questioned the government for “shutting its eyes” while Patanjali Ayurved “tomtommed” its wares as a panacea to COVID19 during the pandemic. The court turned the heat a notch higher on Baba Ramdev, selfstyled yoga guru and Patanjali’s cofounder, by threatening him with perjury proceedings on top of the contempt action hanging over him.
A Bench of Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah told the government, represented by SolicitorGeneral Tushar Mehta, to file a detailed
affidavit to “dispel the impression” that the government machinery, both at the Central and State levels, were complicit with Patanjali.
The court asked why the government did not inform the public, especially during the critical months of
the pandemic in 2020 and 2021, that the products advertised by Patanjali were supplementary to the main medication. “While the proposed contemnors (Patanjali Ayurved, its managing director Balkrishna, and Baba Ramdev) were going to town saying this was the answer and there was nothing else in modern medical science… why did you choose to keep your eyes shut while they tomtommed,” Justice Kohli asked Mr. Mehta.
The court said the proposed contemnors were taking the proceedings “too lightly”. It expressed dissatisfaction with the affidavits filed by Patanjali and Mr. Balkrishna, expressing their apologies for publishing misleading advertisements in violation of the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954 despite an undertaking given to the court last November.
The Bench had initiated contempt proceedings against Patanjali Ayurved and Mr. Balkrishna on February 27 for violating an assurance that they would refrain from advertising or branding products as “permanent relief” for diseases such as obesity, blood pressure and asthma in violation of the 1954 Act. On November 21, the court directed the company not to make any “casual statements” to print or electronic media about the efficacy of their medicinal products or indulge in any disparaging statements about other disciplines of medicine such as allopathy.
On Tuesday, Justice Kohli said the apologies of the company and its managing director were mere “lipservice”, perfunctory at best. They had even argued that the 1954 law was “archaic”.
“So, are you saying that a law need not be complied with because you think it archaic? As long as a law remains a law, it has to be followed,” Justice Kohli addressed senior advocate Vipin Sanghi, for Patanjali Ayurved and Mr. Balkrishna.
Mr. Ramdev was in the courtroom standing behind his counsel, senior advocate Balbir Singh. Mr. Singh said his client had been unable to file an affidavit in response to the court’s contempt notice to him on March 19. He said the affidavit was “ready”, but the yoga guru had come with the hope of personally apologising to the court.
“Being a cofounder, you (Ramdev) were well aware of the November 21 order. For you to hold a press conference within 24 hours of the court order shows you were cognisant of it, and you flouted it,” Justice Kohli addressed Mr. Singh.
Justice Amanullah said Mr. Ramdev had shown “absolute defiance” if he had continued to endorse or promote products despite legal advice.
The court, on Mr. Mehta’s suggestion, gave the proposed contemnors a week’s time as a last opportunity to file fresh affidavits in the contempt case. The court listed the case for April 10.