The Supreme Court on Tuesday, March 19, sought personal appearance of Ramdev (Co-founder of Patanjali) and Patanjali Ayurved Managing Director Acharya Balkrishna before it in the contempt proceedings in a case against its ‘misleading’ advertisements.

The apex court took strong exception to the firm for failing to file a response to its notice on violating the undertaking that Patanjali had given to the court over not coming out with any advertisement about its drugs.

Furthermore, the bench of justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah also issued notice to yoga guru Ramdev to show cause why contempt proceedings be not initiated against him.

The court recorded, “On the last date of hearing, notice to show cause was issued to the Respondent No. 5 (Patanjali) and its Managing Director as to why the contempt of court proceedings should not be initiated against them…a period of two weeks was granted to file a reply and reply is not on record….In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is deemed appropriate to direct the presence of the MD of Resp 5 on the next date of the hearing.”

“Further, having gone through the advertisements issued by Respondent No. 5 in the teeth of the undertaking given to this Court on 21.11.2023 and on noticing that the said advertisements reflect endorsements thereof by Acharya Ramdev, it is deemed appropriate to issue show cause notice as to why the contempt of proceedings should not be issued against him in view of the fact that this Court is prima facie of the opinion that he has also violated the provisions of Section 3 and 4 of the Drugs and Magic Remedies Act….,” the court added.

What is Patanjali advertising case?

SC was addressing a petition filed by the Indian Medical Association (IMA), which accused Ramdev of launching a defamation campaign against the vaccination effort and modern medicine.

The court on February 27, while hearing a petition filed by the IMA, had banned Patanjali Ayurveda from marketing its products until further orders are passed. Additionally, the court had also directed Patanjali to refrain from making derogatory remarks about any medical system.

(With Live Law inputs)