Yoga guru Ramdev and his associate Balkrishna faced the Supreme Court’s scrutiny today in the ongoing contempt case against Patanjali Ayurved over misleading advertisements and COVID cure claims. Last week, the court had strongly reprimanded the founders of Patanjali and also criticized the Uttarakhand government for not taking action against the company based in Haridwar.
During today’s hearing, Justices Hima Kohli and A Amanullah acknowledged the significant contribution of the Patanjali founders to yoga but also questioned their attitude, particularly regarding their promotion of Ayurveda over other medical systems. Ramdev expressed readiness to offer a public apology, stating that it was never his intention to undermine the Supreme Court’s prestige.
However, the court remained skeptical, emphasizing that the law applies equally to everyone. It indicated that previous orders and the founders’ repeated violations would be considered before any decision is made. The next hearing is scheduled for April 23, with Ramdev and Balkrishna instructed to demonstrate their intent.
Outside the court, Ramdev expressed confidence in the judiciary but previous apologies from the defendants were rejected, with the court noting that they were initially sent to the media rather than directly to the court. Justice A Amanullah questioned the sincerity of the apologies, stating that mere apologies are insufficient, and consequences must be faced for violating court orders.
The case stems from Patanjali’s launch of Coronil in 2021, touted as a COVID-19 remedy, which drew criticism from the Indian Medical Association (IMA) for false claims of WHO certification. Subsequent statements by Ramdev disparaging allopathic medicine further exacerbated tensions, leading to legal action by the IMA. The court’s warnings against Patanjali’s misleading advertisements were followed by the company’s failure to comply, prompting contempt proceedings.
Despite assurances from Patanjali’s counsel to adhere to advertising laws, subsequent evidence of continued misinformation led to the court’s firm stance against the company and its founders. The court remains vigilant against what it perceives as attempts to deceive the public and undermine established medical practices.
For more updates follow our Whatsapp 
and Telegram Channel 
