In a courtroom drama that unfolded in recent proceedings, the Supreme Court delivered a resounding critique aimed at Patanjali Ayurved, castigating the company for its controversial advertisements targeting allopathic medicines and vaccinations. 

The apex court minced no words in questioning the rationale behind Patanjali's bold claims of superiority over conventional chemical-based medications, despite previous court directives to the contrary.

A bench of Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah asserted that Patanjali Ayurved has been deceiving the public by promoting unverified assertions about the effectiveness of its medicines in curing specific illnesses. Despite the absence of empirical evidence supporting these claims, the company has persisted in misleading advertising.

Consequently, the Court ruled that Patanjali is prohibited from advertising or promoting any medicinal products purported to treat conditions outlined in the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act.

Additionally, the Court issued a contempt of court notice to Patanjali's founders, Baba Ramdev and Acharya Balkrishna, for disregarding previous court orders and persisting in disseminating false and deceptive claims regarding the curative properties of their products.

Things got dramatic when Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah pulled out newspapers with the ads, clearly frustrated by Patanjali's disregard for the law. He bluntly asked Patanjali how they could keep running these ads, raising eyebrows in the courtroom and sparking talk of potential consequences.

"Can you really say your products cure diseases?" Justice Amanullah's question hung heavy in the air, highlighting the seriousness of the situation. He also called for government action to tackle the issue, showing the court's readiness to take action.

Senior Advocate PS Patwalia, representing the Indian Medical Association (IMA), expressed concerns about the deceptive claims made in advertisements and a press conference conducted by Ramdev Baba, where he discussed remedies for blood pressure and criticized the practices of allopathy.

"Ramdev held a press conference immediately after the last court order," Patwalia informed the Court.

When questioned about the stance of the AYUSH Ministry, Patwalia argued that there was no need for regulation as Patanjali could not have legitimately claimed to have discovered a cure for blood pressure issues.

Subsequently, when asked to defend the advertisements, Senior Advocate Vipin Sanghi, representing Patanjali, requested time to seek instructions. However, the Court emphasized its interest in halting further advertisements.

Previously, the Supreme Court had issued stern warnings to Patanjali, cautioning against the dissemination of misleading advertisements or the propagation of false claims. The specter of hefty penalties loomed large, with the court threatening fines as exorbitant as ₹1 crore for each product implicated in deceptive marketing practices.

Additionally, the court pushed for the government to step in and create better rules to deal with deceptive medical ads. The Indian Medical Association (IMA) showed concerns within the medical community underscoring the potential ramifications of misleading promotional activities on public health perceptions.

Case: INDIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION & ANR. vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.,

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 645/2022.