In a significant development, the Supreme Court rejected another set of apologies from Patanjali founders Ramdev and Balkrishna for misleading advertisements. The court emphasized its dissatisfaction with the apologies, stating that it does not want to be lenient in this case. The bench, comprising Justice Hima Kohli and Justice A Amanullah, expressed strong disapproval of the Uttarakhand licensing authority’s failure to act against Patanjali despite clear violations.
The court criticized the founders for sending their apologies to the media before submitting them to the court, indicating a preference for publicity. Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing the founders, faced scrutiny as he read out the affidavits, with the court questioning the sincerity of the apologies.
Justice Amanullah questioned whether the apologies were heartfelt, emphasizing that mere apologies were insufficient given the deliberate violation of the court’s order. The court stressed the need for accountability and consequences for disregarding court orders, stating that apologies do not absolve individuals of responsibility.
The court highlighted the broader implications of Patanjali’s actions, emphasizing the violation of laws and the impact on public trust. It criticized the Uttarakhand government for its inaction and demanded the suspension of three officers for failing to enforce regulations.
Notably, the court condemned the licensing authority’s leniency towards Patanjali despite repeated violations. It accused the authority of being complicit with Patanjali and failing to uphold its responsibilities.
The court expressed concern over the mockery of the legal system and the potential harm caused to consumers by misleading advertisements. It demanded accountability from all officials involved and stressed the importance of swift and decisive action.
In response, the Uttarakhand counsel assured the court of action and apologized for the authority’s shortcomings. The court welcomed the assurance but maintained its stance on accountability and consequences.
The Supreme Court also criticized Ramdev and Balkrishna for attempting to avoid appearing in court by claiming to be traveling abroad. It underscored the urgency of addressing the matter and set a deadline for actions to be taken against the founders.
Furthermore, the court directed all district ayurvedic and unani officers to submit reports on actions taken against misleading advertisements. It pledged to issue orders on Ramdev and Balkrishna’s case on April 16.
Overall, the Supreme Court’s stance reflects its commitment to upholding the rule of law and ensuring accountability in matters of public interest. The rejection of apologies and the demand for consequences signal a firm stance against deliberate violations and disregard for court orders.