Wed. May 22nd, 2024

Patanjali case: Supreme Court hearing on April 23; Ramdev and Balkrishna Acharya prepared for “public apology”

Patanjali case: Supreme Court hearing on April 23Patanjali case

Patanjali case: On Tuesday, the Supreme Court granted a week to Yoga guru Ramdev and Patanjali Ayurved Ltd MD Balkrishna Acharya to rectify the alleged contempt, following their lawyers’ offer to issue a public apology for the misleading advertisements case.

Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing Ramdev and Balkrishna, informed a bench of Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah that they are prepared to issue a public apology, as reported by news agency PTI.

The Supreme Court asked Ramdev and Balkrishna, who were both present in the courtroom, to come forward for a discussion with the bench.

The bench expressed that Ramdev and Balkrishna should sense a connection with the court.

The proceedings in the case are ongoing, and the bench is currently engaging in dialogue with Ramdev.

Ramdev and Balkrishna have offered an “unconditional and unqualified apology” to the apex court regarding advertisements released by the firm that made exaggerated claims about the medicinal effectiveness of its products.

In two distinct affidavits submitted to the court, Ramdev and Balkrishna have issued an unreserved apology for the “violation of the statement” outlined in the apex court’s order dated November 21 last year.

In its November 21, 2023 order, the Supreme Court took note of the assurance given by the counsel representing Patanjali Ayurved. The assurance stated that there would be no further violations of any laws, particularly in regards to advertising or branding of the company’s products. Additionally, it pledged that no informal statements asserting medicinal effectiveness or criticizing any medical system would be disseminated to the media in any form.

Also Read: Iran

The Supreme Court had stated that Patanjali Ayurved Ltd is obligated to adhere to such assurance.

The Supreme Court was displeased by the failure to comply with the specific assurance and the subsequent statements made to the media. As a result, the court later issued a notice to them, requiring an explanation as to why contempt proceedings should not be initiated.

Related Post

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *