Supreme Court Rejects Patanjali's Apologies: Justice Prevails

The Supreme Court of India has rejected the apologies given by Patanjali's founders, Baba Ramdev and Balkrishna, for their misleading advertisements. The apex court minced no words, declaring, "we are not blind" and asserting that it "does not want to be generous" in this case. Justices Hima Kohli and A. Amanullah, presiding over the bench, tore into the Uttarakhand licensing authority for its failure to take action against Patanjali and expressed dissatisfaction with the Centre's response.

Court's Verdict: No Leniency for Deceptive Advertising

The bench, led by Justice Kohli, highlighted the founders' initial approach, noting that Ramdev and Balkrishna first sent their apologies to the media rather than directly to the court. "Till the matter hit the court, the contemnors did not find it fit to send us the affidavits. They sent it to the media first, till 7.30 pm yesterday it was not uploaded for us. They believe in publicity clearly," Justice Kohli remarked, underscoring the founders' apparent prioritization of public image over genuine contrition.

Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing the Patanjali founders, faced sharp criticism from the bench as he read out the affidavits. Justice Amanullah questioned the sincerity of the apology, remarking, "You are defrauding the affidavit. Whoever drafted it, I am surprised." Despite Rohatgi's attempt to explain the oversight as a "lapse," the court was unrelenting, emphasizing the gravity of the deliberate violation of its orders.

The court emphasized the broader societal implications of Patanjali's actions, stating, "This is not just about one FMCG but a violation of the law." It criticized the Uttarakhand government for its inaction, demanding the suspension of three officers for their failure to act against Patanjali despite repeated violations. The bench condemned the state's licensing authority for its negligence, accusing it of being "in cahoots with the contemnors" and failing in its duty to protect public interest.

Criticism of Regulatory Oversight

The court's reproach extended beyond Patanjali to the regulatory framework, questioning the efficacy of existing laws and enforcement mechanisms. It highlighted the need for accountability and transparency, particularly in cases involving public health and safety. The bench underscored the seriousness of the matter, asserting that "the Supreme Court is being mocked" and warning against complacency or complicity in such instances.

The court's criticism extended to the regulatory system, questioning its effectiveness and transparency. It stressed the need for accountability, especially concerning public health and safety.

As the proceedings ended, the court announced it would make a decision on Ramdev and Balkrishna's case on April 16, showing its commitment to holding those responsible for misleading advertisements accountable. The Supreme Court's firm stance serves as a reminder of its dedication to justice and protecting citizens' rights in a society where accountability often falls short.

Advertisement

Source-Medindia