Synopsis: The Supreme Court is overseeing a case involving Ramdev and Balkrishna of Patanjali Ayurved over misleading advertisements for medicines. The defendants sought time to detail steps taken to recall the ads, and the court granted them three weeks.
Ramdev and Balkrishna have requested additional time to submit an affidavit detailing the actions taken to recall advertisements for medicines whose licenses have been revoked.
The Supreme Court has granted them a three-week extension.
On May 14, the Supreme Court reserved judgment against Ramdev and Balkrishna, the promoter and managing director of Patanjali Ayurved respectively, concerning misleading advertisements for drugs produced by the company.
Ramdev and Balkrishna sought an extension to file an affidavit outlining the steps taken to recall advertisements for medicines whose licenses have been revoked.
The apex court granted them three weeks and waived their requirement for personal appearance at this time.
Additionally, the Supreme Court questioned Dr. Asokan, the president of the Indian Medical Association, for speaking to the press regarding the court's orders in the case.
The court expressed concerns about the precedent set by such actions and questioned the example it sets for the association's 3.5 lakh doctors.
Patanjali's lawyers previously informed the court on April 30 that the company had published 322 apologies in newspapers for advertisements containing false claims about its products.
The court acknowledged a noticeable improvement in the company's approach, particularly noting that the apologies now include the names of Ramdev and Balkrishna.
During earlier proceedings, the court had queried whether the public apologies issued by the defendants were as prominent as the company's original advertisements.
Despite the apologies, the court had initially refused to accept them, considering them a deliberate disobedience of prior undertakings.
In response to contempt proceedings initiated for continuing to run misleading advertisements, the court had ordered Ramdev and Balkrishna to appear personally.
The contempt notice was issued for publishing advertisements in violation of the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954, and its Rules, following a petition filed by the Indian Medical Association.
The case, originally filed by the Indian Medical Association, has expanded to include scrutiny of other FMCG companies' exaggerated health claims, as well as the involvement of doctors in promoting such products.
In conclusion, the legal proceedings involving Ramdev, Balkrishna, and Patanjali Ayurved have seen developments regarding their misleading advertisements for medicines.
Despite initial refusals to accept apologies and contempt notices, the Supreme Court has acknowledged improvements in the company's approach, particularly in issuing public apologies that now include the names of the responsible individuals.
The case, initiated by the Indian Medical Association, has broadened to encompass other FMCG companies and the role of doctors in promoting products with exaggerated health benefits.
As the legal process unfolds, it underscores the importance of adherence to advertising regulations and accountability in the healthcare industry.
Related Questions
1. Request for Additional Time by Ramdev and Balkrishna
This section outlines the request made by Ramdev and Balkrishna for additional time to submit an affidavit detailing the actions taken to recall advertisements for medicines with revoked licenses. It discusses the three-week extension granted by the Supreme Court and the waiver of their requirement for personal appearance.
2. Supreme Court's Response to the Request
This section provides insights into the Supreme Court's response to Ramdev and Balkrishna's request for additional time. It discusses the three-week extension granted by the court and its decision to waive the requirement for their personal appearance at this time.
3. Questioning of Dr. Asokan by the Supreme Court
This section discusses the Supreme Court's questioning of Dr. Asokan, the president of the Indian Medical Association, for speaking to the press regarding the court's orders in the case. It highlights the concerns raised by the court about the precedent set by such actions and the example it sets for the association's doctors.
4. Acknowledgment of Improvements by the Supreme Court
This section highlights the acknowledgment by the Supreme Court of improvements in Patanjali's approach, particularly in issuing public apologies that now include the names of Ramdev and Balkrishna. It discusses the court's previous refusals to accept apologies and contempt notices, and the subsequent recognition of improvements in the company's approach.
5. Expansion of the Case by the Indian Medical Association
This section discusses the expansion of the case by the Indian Medical Association to include scrutiny of other FMCG companies' exaggerated health claims and the involvement of doctors in promoting such products. It highlights the broader implications of the case beyond Patanjali and emphasizes the importance of adherence to advertising regulations and accountability in the healthcare industry.
