“We Will Rip You Apart”: SC slams authorities in Patanjali ads case

In a stern response to the misleading advertisements by Patanjali, the Supreme Court (SC) has rejected another round of apologies filed by the company’s founders, Ramdev and Balkrishna. The court asserted that it “does not want to be generous” in this case and criticized the Uttarakhand licensing authority for failing to take action against Patanjali. It also expressed dissatisfaction with the Centre’s response to the matter.

“The apology is on paper. Their back is against the wall. We decline to accept this, we consider it a deliberate violation of the undertaking,” stated the bench of Justice Hima Kohli and Justice A Amanullah.

The court highlighted the delayed submission of apologies, noting that Ramdev and Balkrishna sent them to the media before sending them to the court. It criticized the lack of sincerity in the apologies and questioned the authenticity of their remorse.

Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing the Patanjali founders, faced scrutiny as he read out the affidavits. Justice Amanullah accused him of defrauding the affidavit, raising doubts about its authenticity. Rohatgi acknowledged a “lapse” but faced further rebuke from the court.

Despite the apologies, the court emphasized that mere remorse was insufficient. It emphasized the need for accountability and consequences for violating court orders. The bench stressed the importance of sending a message to society regarding compliance with the law and criticized Patanjali’s conduct in dealing with state authorities.

Turning its attention to the Uttarakhand government, the court demanded explanations for the lack of action by licensing inspectors. It called for the suspension of three officers and criticized the licensing authority for its lax approach.

The court condemned the “disdain” shown by Patanjali’s Divya pharmacy towards state authority warnings and expressed concern about the impact on consumers. It called for accountability from all district Ayurvedic and Unani officers regarding actions taken against the misleading ads.

The Supreme Court scheduled further hearings on April 16 to address the matter comprehensively.