Patanjali Ayurveda's promoters, Baba Ramdev and Acharya Balkrishna, have approached a Kerala trial court seeking the recall of a non-bailable arrest warrant issued against them. The warrant was issued after they failed to appear for a scheduled hearing earlier this month in a misleading advertisement case involving Patanjali.

The duo has moved an application under Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which allows courts to exempt accused individuals from appearing in person and instead be represented by their legal counsel.

Initially, the Judicial First-Class Magistrate-II in Palakkad had issued a bailable warrant against them when they did not appear for the January 16 hearing despite being summoned. The court then scheduled the matter for February 1. However, when Ramdev and Balkrishna again failed to attend, the court escalated the matter by issuing a non-bailable warrant and setting the next hearing for February 3. The case was later adjourned to February 6, when their application to recall the warrant and seek exemption from personal appearances is also set to be heard.

The case stems from a complaint filed by the Drugs Inspector of Palakkad against Divya Pharmacy, an affiliate of Patanjali Ayurved. The complaint alleges that advertisements published by Divya Pharmacy violated the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954.

Similar cases have been registered across Kerala, accusing Divya Pharmacy of publishing advertisements that undermine modern medicine, particularly allopathy, and making unverified claims about curing diseases. Another such case is pending before the judicial First-Class Magistrate Court in Kozhikode.

Over the past two years, Patanjali and its founders have faced scrutiny over their advertising claims. The issue gained national attention when the Indian Medical Association (IMA) moved the Supreme Court against Patanjali Ayurved, alleging misleading advertisements.

The Supreme Court had imposed a temporary ban on Patanjali’s medicine advertisements and issued contempt of court notices against its founders for making unsubstantiated claims. The Court remarked that Patanjali had misled the public by falsely claiming its medicines could cure certain diseases without scientific backing.

Following their appearance before the Court and an apology, the Supreme Court directed them to publish public apologies in newspapers. During the proceedings, the Court also criticized the Central government for not invoking the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules of 1945 against Patanjali.

In August 2024, the Supreme Court closed the contempt proceedings against them.

Case Title: Drug Inspector, Palakkad v. M/s Divya Pharmacy