Ramdev and Patanjali Issue Larger Apology Following Supreme Court’s Rebuke

In Short

• Ramdev and Balkrishna apologise again for misleading Patanjali ads
• Apology published in newspapers after Supreme Court critique
• Apology also issued for non-compliance of Supreme Court orders

In response to a stern rebuke from the Supreme Court, yoga guru Ramdev and his associate Acharya Balkrishna have issued a fresh and enlarged apology in leading newspapers.

The move comes after the court questioned the adequacy of their previous apology regarding misleading advertisements for Patanjali’s medicinal products.

In the latest advertisement, Ramdev and Balkrishna expressed their “unconditional apology” both individually and on behalf of Patanjali Ayurved for the failure to comply with the directives of the Supreme Court of India.

They acknowledged the mistake made in publishing misleading advertisements and pledged to ensure that such errors would not be repeated in the future.

The Supreme Court’s scrutiny intensified during a contempt proceedings hearing, prompting questions about the size and visibility of the apology compared to the full-page advertisements regularly utilized for promoting Patanjali’s products.

Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah sought clarification on why the apology was issued only shortly before the court hearing and requested confirmation of its size and prominence in newspapers.

Ramdev and Balkrishna informed the bench that they had published unqualified apologies in 67 newspapers, with expenses totaling Rs 10 lakh. However, the court emphasized the need for the actual advertisements to be presented, emphasizing that they should be easily readable without the need for magnification.

This episode follows previous controversies surrounding Patanjali’s claims regarding the medicinal efficacy of its products, particularly during the Covid-19 pandemic.

The Supreme Court had directed Patanjali to cease all advertisements that made unsubstantiated claims about treating specific ailments, following a petition from the Indian Medical Association (IMA) alleging defamation of modern medicine.

In response to the court’s directives, Patanjali had promised to refrain from making misleading statements and had expressed its intention to promote healthier living through its products.

However, the recent focus on the size and visibility of the apology underscores ongoing tensions between traditional and modern approaches to healthcare advertising and regulation.