New Delhi. The Supreme Court on Tuesday termed the apology tenders of yoga guru Baba Ramdev and his disciple Acharya Balkrishna as sham and rejected them in a contempt case related to misleading advertisements of Patanjali Ayurved related to the treatment of various diseases.
The bench of Justice Hima Kohli and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, while rejecting the apology, also said that we wonder why the Indian government kept its eyes closed (in this matter). After hearing the arguments of the parties concerned, the apex court gave them one last chance to file their clear affidavit in the matter within a week and fixed April 10 for consideration of the matter.
The apex court directed Baba Ramdev and Acharya Balkrishna to appear on that day. Baba Ramdev and Acharya Balkrishna were personally present in the court before the bench on Tuesday. He wished to state before the court through his lawyer Balbir Singh that he wanted to apologize for his failure to file an affidavit in the case.
Singh said before the court that I can say with folded hands that those gentlemen (Ramdev and Balkrishna) are present in the court and the court can record their apology. On this the bench told him that you will have to follow the promise given to the court. You have broken every barrier. Now saying that you are sorry is not acceptable (to the court).
The bench said in view of Baba Ramdev's status in the society that his responsibility is more difficult than that of a common citizen. We are taking this very seriously. The purpose of law is to maintain the majesty of the law. Disrespecting another field of medicine is unacceptable. The bench also condemned the statement in the affidavit of the Patanjali managing director that the Drugs and Cosmetics (Magic Remedies) Act was archaic.
The bench remarked whether we should assume that every archaic Act should not be implemented. When there is an Act which regulates the concerned field… If science has progressed then what did you do to tell about it to the government. The apex court also expressed strong disagreement over the press conference held by Baba Ramdev and the publication of advertisements after its previous order.
The bench said that you stand by the promise given by your company. You had a press conference and your ad came out two months later. The apex court also rejected the contention of senior advocate Vipin Shanghvi that the advertisements were issued by the media department, which was unaware of the ongoing proceedings in the case before the court.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the central government, said that whatever happened should not have happened. He suggested that he sit with the lawyer and prepare an affidavit to file in the court. On this the bench said that we wonder why the Government of India kept its eyes closed. Mehta also mentioned the reliefs sought by petitioner IMA, including that allopathy cannot be criticized. To this the bench said that it would consider those claims when it examines the main case.
