The Supreme Court has escalated its scrutiny of Baba Ramdev and his company, Patanjali Ayurved, over allegations of misleading advertisements and unsubstantiated claims regarding their products. In a recent development, the Court directed Baba Ramdev to appear personally before it after he failed to respond to a show cause notice in contempt proceedings initiated against Patanjali Ayurved.

A Bench comprising Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah expressed firmness in their stance, remarking that Ramdev and Patanjali Chairman Acharya Balkrishna appeared to be in prima facie violation of Sections 3 and 4 of the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954. Despite objections raised by Senior Advocate Mukul Rohtagi, representing Patanjali, the Court remained resolute in its decision, emphasizing the seriousness of the matter.

The Court's action follows its previous imposition of a temporary ban on advertisements for Patanjali Ayurved's medicines and the issuance of contempt notices to its founders for disseminating misleading claims. The apex court expressed dismay over Patanjali's alleged exploitation of the populace by falsely asserting that its medicines could cure certain diseases without empirical evidence to support such assertions.

Furthermore, the Court criticized the Central government for its purported failure to address the issue of misleading advertisements adequately, despite a petition being filed against it in 2022. It directed Patanjali to refrain from making adverse statements or claims against other forms of medicine, highlighting the importance of accurate and responsible advertising, particularly in the realm of healthcare.

The legal scrutiny of Patanjali's advertising practices stems from a plea filed by the Indian Medical Association (IMA), which accused the self-styled yoga guru and his company of launching a smear campaign against the COVID-19 vaccination drive and modern medicine. The Supreme Court, in previous proceedings, had threatened to levy substantial costs for each false claim made in Patanjali Ayurved's advertisements, underlining the gravity of the issue.

Moreover, the Court emphasized that the dispute should not be reduced to a debate between allopathy/modern medicine and Ayurvedic products, but rather underscored the need for a comprehensive solution to address misleading medical advertisements. It directed Patanjali to desist from publishing false advertisements in the future and cautioned against making such claims to the media.

Case: Indian Medical Association & Anr v. Union of India and Ors.