The Supreme Court of India has initiated suo motu contempt proceedings against Patanjali Ayurved Limited, its Managing Director Acharya Balkrishna, and Baba Ramdev. The case arose after the Indian Medical Association (IMA) accused Patanjali of spreading misinformation about the efficacy of its products, falsely claiming they could cure serious ailments such as diabetes, heart disease, and asthma. Despite an earlier court order, Patanjali allegedly continued these misleading advertisements, prompting the court to take action.

1. Introduction

The Supreme Court of India has initiated contempt proceedings against Patanjali Ayurved Limited, its Managing Director Acharya Balkrishna, and Baba Ramdev for allegedly violating court orders by continuing to make false and misleading claims about their products' medicinal efficacy.

2. Backdrop

The Indian Medical Association (IMA) filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, accusing Patanjali and its representatives of conducting a campaign of misinformation against modern medicine, leading to the initiation of these contempt proceedings.

3. Initial Proceedings

On November 21, 2023, the Supreme Court recorded an assurance from Patanjali's counsel that they would refrain from making unsubstantiated claims about their products. Despite this, advertisements published by Patanjali on December 4, 2023, and statements made in a press conference by Baba Ramdev on November 22, 2023, prompted further legal action.

4. Violation of Court Orders

The court noted that the advertisements published by Patanjali continued to claim that their products could cure conditions like high blood pressure, diabetes, and asthma, which are explicitly listed under the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954, as conditions for which no drug can claim a cure.

5. Contempt Proceedings

Due to the continuation of these advertisements and statements, the court issued notices to Patanjali and its representatives, asking them to explain why contempt proceedings should not be initiated. The court also restrained Patanjali from advertising or branding any products as cures for diseases listed in the Act.

6. Conclusion

The case highlights the court's stance on misleading health claims and the importance of adhering to legal standards in advertising, particularly in matters concerning public health. The proceedings against Patanjali serve as a significant reminder of the legal obligations companies have when marketing products that claim to have medicinal properties.