Case Analysis: In Re: Patanjali Ayurved Ltd. through its Managing Director, Acharya Balkrishna and Baba Ramdev (in the matter of: Indian Medical Association VS. Union of India)

FACTS OF THE CASE:

The current matter arises out of a suo motu contempt proceeding moved by Supreme Court of India against Patanjali Ayurved Ltd. and its Managing Director Acharya Balkrishna and the high-profile brand endorser Baba Ramdev. The action was commenced in the backdrop of misrepresenting advertisements, adverse assertions against allopathic medical practice and defiance of court undertakings made before the Court in an earlier writ petition (Union of India Vs. Indian Medical Association (IMA)) interfering with the freedom of speech enjoyed by the members of IMA.

The fundamental problem started when the IMA aired writ petition in 2022 against the misleading and defamatory statements released by Patanjali Ayurved against modern medicine and vaccines especially during and after the COVID-19 pandemic. In connection to the judicial scrutiny by the court in the past, Patanjali and its spokespersons have made solemn undertakings before the Supreme Court in 2023 that they will no longer indulge in issuing public statements or advertisements that discredit allopathic medicine or its doctors.

Nevertheless, even after the action Patanjali still ran advertisement at all levels that it had permanent solutions to chronic and serious diseases like diabetes, asthma and even cancer. The company also intimated that allopathy was useless and that the Ayurveda-based products of Patanjali were complete and total alternatives of it. The advertisements were not only commercially deceptive but also put forth violation of Drugs and Magic remedies (objectionable advertisements) 1954 and consumer protection act, 2019.

Because of the flagitious betrayal of solemn commitments, in early 2024 the Supreme Court on its own initiative opened proceedings on contempt. Notices had been issued to Patanjali Ayurved Ltd., its Managing Director Acharya Balkrishna and Baba Ramdev to show reasons as to why they should not be proceeded with under Article 129 of the Constitution of India and the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

The Court observed, at times in the hearings, that its orders were being repeatedly flouted and that the contemnors were not showing any contrition of the actions. It is also important to note that the Union of India was also impleaded, since the Ministry of AYUSH had not taken any substantial measure towards containing the untruthful campaigns by Patanjali. The Court analyzed voluminous evidence such as advertisement, press release, and video materials that supported the scornful behavior by Patanjali.

ISSUES OF THE CASE:

1. It is a question whether Patanjali ayurved limited, Acharya Balkrishna and Baba Ramdev breached the assurances made to the Supreme Court by engaging in publishing misleading publicity against allopathic medicine.

2. Whether the activities of the contemnors constituted the criminal contempt of court as envisaged by Article 129 of the Constitution of India and Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

3. Whether the failure of the Union of India, specifically the Government of India in its regulatory obligations to check the promulgation of untrue and unscientific health, or health gain promises.

JUDGMENT:

The Supreme Court of India condescendingly passed a strongly worded and harsh judgment criticizing the actions of Patanjali Ayurved Ltd, its Managing Director Acharya Balkrishna and its brand ambassador Baba Ramdev in the contempt proceeding that has been initiated in the Indian Medical Association v. Union of India. Though, the Court has left it to the final judgement of the sentencing authorities, the issue of its disapproval of the respondents that violated legal commitments repeatedly and it was an intentional practice to mislead consumers by giving unjustified claims relating to health through their advertisements was also crystal clear.

The Court greatly noted that even after the said assurances of ceasing the untruthful and defaming adverts against the modern medicine (allopathy) made to the Court earlier, Patanjali Ayurved was still publishing lies and derogatory adverts against modern medicine (allopathy) and making the false claims that their ayurvedic medicines were able to cure serious ailments like COVID-19 and others which had no basis scientifically. The Court noted that such acts were not unintentional or even careless but rather a concerted and deliberate move to disobey the power of law as well as reverence of a court of law. The respondents had issued affidavits to the Court stating that they will not issue similar claims but they clearly flouted what they had said.

The Court described these recurring actions as not only gross misuse of the freedom of expression but also contemptuous conduct that warrant the legal sanction. It highlighted that when parties give statements or undertakings to the Court, they become bound by them and any violation becomes a great challenge to the dignity of the entire judicial exercise. The behavior exhibited by the respondents according to it portrayed a disrespectful attitude towards judicial authority as well as safety of the people at large.

Moreover, the Court expressed discomfort over the possible health-related consequences of such the kind of deceptive advertising practices. It observed that by popularizing unsubstantiated medicine and dismissing medically evidence-based medical advice and medications, the respondents were endangering the health of the people, particularly in a nation where the spread of medical misinformation may be really severe and disastrous. The decision highlighted that consumer confidence in health-related information cannot be allowed to be compromised and the people who would want to take advantage of the information in order to make money out of consumers must be dealt with harshly.

The Court also emphasized the necessity of the more rigid regulatory control of the sphere of the medical advertising and marketing as well as by the procurers of alternative medicine. At the same time that it did mention the cultural and traditional significance of ayurveda, the Court emphasized that such systems shall not be used as a cloak to make false or misleading medical claims. It noted that the episode underscored the existence of regulatory gaps, and pleaded with the government and concerned agencies to think about beefing up legal solutions to stop violations in the future.

Although the sentencing part of the contempt issue was deferred till later, the mood and scale of the decision left little room to doubt the dire awaiting of the consequences of any future violations. This ruling marked a turn towards more responsibility, in not just Patanjali Ayurved Ltd., but also other market players in the wellness sector who might choose to pursue the gains of misleading information to the detriment of the community or even to make unsubstantiated medical claims in the name of traditional cures.

REASONING:

The rationale of the Supreme Court had many folds and was based not only on statutory interpretation but also on the constitutional reasoning. The Court also cited Section 3 and 4 of Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954 that bans false advertisements of cure of diseases and disorders without any scientific proof. The advertisements by Patanjali were considered to be very well within this prohibited edge.

The Court admitted that the right to freedom of speech recorded in Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution is important yet not absolute. Advertisements or marketing which were inaccurate regarding medical products and, more so, in a pandemic were not considered to be a speech and thus could be restricted under Article 19(2) in that this is in the interest of maintaining the health and morals of the people.

 The respondents earlier in the Court had undertakings that they would not make such claims. Nevertheless, they openly denied these commitments by not stopping advertising products making unfounded medical claims. The Court felt that this was a straightforward instance of civil contempt under Section 2 (b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

The declarations made by Baba Ramdev such as demeaning language against contemporary doctors and medications were also mentioned as a part of the narrative created against evidence-based medicine. According to the Court, this sounded very irresponsible, particularly, in the face of a health emergency such as the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Court was concerned that the possible harm to deceive the population with unreasonable medical statements was quite high. By believing in Patanjali products people could have also failed to seek real medical help and hence endangered their lives. This was a national threat to the health of the people due to such acts.

The Court ensured the importance of transparency and integrity on the part of the people in authority and the corporate leaders by making Baba Ramdev and Acharya Balkrishna individually responsible. The case brought up the misuse of the celebrity status to manipulate the vulnerable groups.

The Court further indicated lapse by government agencies such as the Ministry of AYUSH and the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting who failed to provide sufficient regulative control in advertisements that contained deceptive advertisements. It proposed enhancing a system to sieve harmful content through mass-communication.

REFERENCES:

1. Indian Medical Association v. Union of India, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 645/2022.
2. Constitution of India 1950, arts 129 and 19(1)(a).
3. Contempt of Courts Act 1971.
4. Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act 1954.
5. Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India (1998) 4 SCC 409.
6. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/21614696/ 
7. https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2024/35078/35078_2024_9_15 

Written by Prerna Puthela from LPU as Legal Vidhya intern.

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is personal.

Karan Chhetri

‘Social Media Head’ and ‘Case Analyst’ of Legal Vidhiya.