SC closes contempt proceedings against Ramdev & Balkrishna, accepts apology
Earlier on May 14, dispensing Ramdev and Balkrishna’s personal appearance in further hearings, a bench of Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah reserved its verdict in the contempt proceedings.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Tuesday discharged the contempt notice issued to Yoga Guru Baba Ramdev and Patanjali Ayurved's Managing Director Acharya Balkrishna over the continued publication of misleading advertisements by the company.
Earlier on May 14, dispensing Ramdev and Balkrishna’s personal appearance in further hearings, a bench of Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah reserved its verdict in the contempt proceedings.
Justice Kohli-led Bench decided to close the matter in view of the apology tendered before the apex court and the public apology published by Patanjali. However, it cautioned them not to violate the undertaking furnished before the apex court in future.
In an earlier hearing, the top court had rejected the "unconditional and unqualified apology" tendered by Ramdev and Balkrishna and took strong exception over the violation of the undertaking given to the Supreme Court in November last year.
Patanjali had earlier assured the Supreme Court that it would not make any casual statements claiming the medicinal efficacy of its products or advertise or brand them in violation of law and would not release any statement against any system of medicine to the media in any form.
The Indian Medical Association (IMA) has sought action against Patanjali for violation of the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954 -- which prohibits the advertisement of certain products for the treatment of specified diseases and disorders, including diabetes, heart diseases, high or low blood pressure and obesity.
Last week, the top court told IMA President Dr R.V. Asokan to issue a public apology in prominent newspapers using his own funds for his contemptuous statement.
In an interview with a media outlet, Dr Asokan had termed the oral observations made by the apex court during Patanjali's misleading advertisements case against allopathy practitioners as "unfortunate" and a "very vague and general statement which has demoralised the doctors."