The Supreme Court of India expressed significant displeasure with the apology that Dr. RV Asokan, the President of the Indian Medical Association (IMA), had made during a recent hearing in the Patanjali misleading advertisements case. The Court found Dr. Asokan remarks to be contemptuous during his interview with the Press Trust of India (PTI).
During the proceedings, the bench, comprising Justices Hima Kohli and Sandeep Mehta, noted that Dr. Asokan’s actions were “inviting more trouble” for himself. In order to give Dr. Asokan time to take the necessary actions to absolve himself of the contempt, the Court decided to postpone the case until August 27. Senior Advocate PS Patwalia, representing on behalf of the IMA, assured the court that Dr. Asokan would take the necessary steps.
The bench emphasized that Dr. Asokan could not simply submit an apology to the PTI and walk away from the situation. The Court stressed that the apology must be published in all newspapers that broadcasted the original interview and that it should be sponsored by Dr. Asokan himself. “Apology needs to be tendered by you and from your own pocket, not IMA,” the Court stated.
Table of Contents
Background of the Case
Initially, the IMA filed suit against Patanjali Ayurved for misleading statements and disparaging ads against allopathic medicine. Patanjali had previously promised the Court that they would not make any more remarks of this nature. The Court opened contempt proceedings against Patanjali, its managing director Acharya Balkrishna, and co-founder Baba Ramdev because the deceptive ads persisted in spite of the warning.
Patanjali, Baba Ramdev, and Acharya Balkrishna apologised to the court for the proceedings. These justifications, though, were not approved. In response to the Court’s censure, Patanjali released an apology in print media that featured the names of Acharya Balkrishna and Baba Ramdev. On May 14, the contempt case’s orders were reserved.
The Court questioned the IMA’s ethical standards in April 2024 and ordered the organisation to handle grievances brought against its members. As a result, Dr. RV Asokan was prompted to criticise the Supreme Court’s observations in a news interview. Patanjali consequently filed a request for action against Dr. Asokan for his statements. On May 7, the Court issued a notice to Dr. Asokan.
Recent developments
The Court took several matters concerning misleading ads into consideration during the July 9 hearing. The court requested reports on whether the 14 Ayurvedic medications sold by Patanjali were still being advertised after the Uttarakhand State Licensing Authorities suspended their licenses. The court informed various trade associations about the challenges posed by advertising limitations and ordered Patanjali to provide an affidavit verifying the status of these advertisements.
In addition, the Court examined a number of interlocutory petitions (IAs) from different trade associations outlining problems resulting from the Court’s previous order restricting advertising agencies. It was mandated that the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting schedule additional meetings with interested parties and submit an affidavit with recommendations.
However, the Court then criticised the IMA for its President’s remarks, which attacked the Court for requesting that physicians clean up their own mess and stop unethical practices in modern medicine. In remarks to the media, IMA President Dr. RV Asokan expressed that he found it “unfortunate” that the Supreme Court had criticised the IMA and that this had demoralised doctors. This comment was strongly objected to by the Bench of Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah.
Conclusion
The Court reiterated that Dr. Asokan was required to issue an apology to all of the newspapers that originally published his interview. The Court observed that Dr.Asokan’s apology was insufficient because it was only made public by PTI, the IMA’s website, and its monthly journal. The court’s emphasis on accountability is illustrated by its order that Dr. Asokan personally pay for the printing of his apologies. As this case moves forward, the results could have a big impact on advertising standards and the obligations of healthcare organizations. This is likely to be addressed further during the next hearing, which is scheduled for August 27, 2024.
