Patanjali Ads Case: Supreme Court Ends Contempt Proceedings against Ramdev and Balakrishna, but Warns Against Future Violations of Orders

The Supreme Court on Tuesday closed the contempt proceedings against Yoga Guru Ramdev and his aide Acharya Balakrishna, accepting their apologies and undertakings to stop making misleading advertisements and claims about Patanjali Ayurved Limited products. The court, however, issued a stern warning against any future violations of its orders.

"We expressly and strictly warn them that they will not do anything in violation of the court orders like it has happened earlier in this case. We have come down heavily and we warn that this should not be done in future", said the bench of Justice Hima Kohli and Justice Sandeep Mehta in their order accepting the apology of Baba Ramdev and Acharya Balakrishna. "The affidavits tendered before this court should be done with full truth. We close the contempt proceedings initiated against the party with the warning of adhering to the orders passed by this court in this case. The notice issued to present contemnor also stands discharge and closed", the court added.

The matter dates back to the Covid-19 pandemic when Patanjali launched a drug named Coronil in 2021. Ramdev promoted Coronil as the “first evidence-based medicine for COVID-19” and claimed it had certification from the WHO (World Health Organization). The Indian Medical Association (IMA) contested these claims, labeling them a “blatant lie,” and demanded an apology. In response, Ramdev dismissed allopathy as a “stupid and bankrupt science.” Patanjali Yogpeeth later contended that Ramdev was merely reading from a forwarded WhatsApp message and bore no ill-will towards modern science.

In 2022, the IMA filed a petition against Patanjali for publishing an advertisement titled “Misconceptions Spread By Allopathy: Save Yourself And The Country From The Misconceptions Spread By Pharma And Medical Industry.” The petition alleged that Patanjali’s ads, which promised miracle cures for various illnesses, violated the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954, and the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1954.

In November of the previous year, the Supreme Court issued a warning to Ramdev, Balakrishna, and Patanjali, cautioned that heavy fines would be levied for such claims. On January 15, the court received an anonymous letter alleging that Patanjali was still issuing misleading advertisements. Contempt notices were issued to Patanjali, prompting Ramdev and Balakrishna to appear in person after the company failed to respond to the notice. The court strongly criticized Ramdev and Balakrishna on April 2 for their failure to file proper affidavits regarding the misleading advertisements. The initial apologies, which were first sent to the media, were rejected. The court questioned whether the size of the apology matched the scale of the full-page advertisements, leading Patanjali to publish more prominent apologies in major newspapers.