Patanjali ads case: File on record original page of all newspapers where apology was issued, SC tells Ramdev

The Supreme Court on Tuesday asked yoga guru Baba Ramdev and Acharya Balkrishna to file on record original page of each newspaper in which public apology was issued in connection with the Patanjali misleading ads case.

The apex court also exempted duo from personal appearances for the next date of hearing.

The court was hearing a contempt petition concerning misleading advertisements by Patanjali Ayurved, instructing the Registry to record it upon filing.

According to a MoneyControl report, Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah criticised Patanjali's legal team for failing to submit original copies of the public apology, as requested by the court.

More from India

Despite being directed to provide the original papers, this was not fulfilled, noted the the apex court.

Patanjali's lawyer cited the voluminous nature of the 322 apologies published in newspapers as a challenge in filing them.

The court, however, acknowledged a positive shift in the attitude of Patanjali's management.

"There has been a marked improvement. There was only Patanjali earlier, now there are names. We appreciate that. They have understood," said SC.

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court also pulled up the Uttarakhand State Licensing Authority for inaction in the the case involving Patanjali Ayurved Limited.

Expressing dissatisfaction over the explanation offered by the body, a bench of Justice Hima Kohli and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah observed it appeared that the licensing authority got activated to take action in accordance with the law only after the apex court's 10 April order.

"Be honest to the court if you want sympathy and compassion," the bench observed.

The top court said its main concern is whether the licensing body took action in accordance with the law in the matter.

The bench has posted the matter for hearing on 14 May.

While hearing the matter on 10 April, the apex court came down heavily on the Uttarakhand State Licensing Authority for inaction and said it was not going to take it lightly as the body appeared to have kept its "eyes shut deliberately".

With inputs from agencies