सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने पतंजलि भ्रामक विज्ञापन मामले में रामदेव की माफी खारिज कर दी।

सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने पतंजलि भ्रामक विज्ञापन मामले में रामदेव की माफी खारिज कर दी।

Supreme Court rejects Ramdev's apology in Patanjali misleading ad case.

Supreme Court rejects Patanjali's apology for misleading ads.

  • National News
  • 93
  • 10, Apr, 2024
Jyoti Ahlawat
Jyoti Ahlawat
  • @JyotiAhlawat

Supreme Court rejects Ramdev's apology in Patanjali misleading ad case.

On Wednesday (April 10), the Supreme Court rejected the second apology affidavit submitted by Patanjali Ayurved and its Managing Director Acharya Balkrishna in the contempt case related to the dissemination of deceptive medical advertisements.

Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, constituting the bench, declined to acknowledge the recent affidavit from Patanjali and its MD, which conveyed an "unconditional and unqualified apology" for broadcasting the advertisements despite committing to the Court in November last year not to do so. The Court also dismissed an apology affidavit submitted by Patanjali co-founder Baba Ramdev, who is also facing contempt charges. Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing Patanjali, was informed by the bench that the affidavit appeared to be insincere and warned that the individuals involved might face penalties for disregarding their commitment.

Justice Kohli expressed skepticism about the sincerity of the apology, stating, "Apology is on paper. Their back is against the wall. We decline to accept this, we consider it a deliberate violation of undertaking. Be ready for something next to rejection of affidavit." Despite Rohatgi's assertion that mistakes happen, Justice Kohli emphasized consequences, saying, "Then they suffer. We don't want to be so generous in this case." The bench questioned why they should not treat the apology with the same disdain as shown towards the court undertaking and indicated their intention to reject it.

During the hearing's conclusion, Rohatgi mentioned that the contemnors were willing to issue a public apology, but the court did not entertain this request.

It's worth noting that in the previous week, the bench had expressed dissatisfaction with an earlier affidavit from Patanjali MD, as it contained remarks regarding the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act 1954 being "archaic."

News Reference

Follow the Hindeez on Google News
Follow the Hindeez channel on WhatsApp
Jyoti Ahlawat

Jyoti Ahlawat

  • @JyotiAhlawat