The Supreme Court refused a second round of apologies from Baba Ramdev, Patanjali Ayurved Limited, and its managing director in a contempt case. The Court expressed concerns about FMCG companies misleading the public about health benefits. Patanjali’s advertisements violated the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act of 1954. The court criticized the authorities for not taking action against Patanjali earlier. The court directed detailed affidavits from responsible officers and listed the case for further hearing.
Violation of the Drugs and Magic Remedies Act
The Supreme Court expressed concerns over misleading advertisements by Patanjali Ayurved claiming to cure various ailments, including COVID-19, violating the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act of 1954.
Contempt Proceedings
The apex court initiated contempt proceedings against Patanjali Ayurved and its managing director for violating an undertaking given to refrain from such advertisements.
Refusal of Apology
The Court refused to accept a second round of apologies from the defendants, considering their conduct and the seriousness of the violations.
Criticism of Authorities
The Court criticized the Uttarakhand State Licensing Authority for ignoring the misleading advertisements and directed them to file detailed affidavits explaining their inaction.
Further Actions
The Court directed responsible officers, including District Ayurvedic and Unani Officers, to file affidavits explaining their inaction against Patanjali Ayurved. The case was listed for further hearing.
Multiple Choice Questions (MCQs):
- What law did Patanjali Ayurved’s advertisements violate?
a) Consumer Protection Act
b) Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act of 1954
c) Advertising Standards Council of India Act
d) Food Safety and Standards Act
Answer: b) Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act of 1954 - When did the Supreme Court initiate contempt proceedings against Patanjali Ayurved?
a) November 2023
b) February 27, 2024
c) November 2024
d) April 2022
Answer: b) February 27, 2024 - What was the response of the Supreme Court to the apologies from Patanjali Ayurved and its managing director?
a) Accepted them without further inquiry
b) Rejected them due to the seriousness of violations
c) Requested more apologies
d) Delayed the decision
Answer: b) Rejected them due to the seriousness of violations - What action did the Supreme Court direct against responsible officers who failed to act against Patanjali Ayurved?
a) Issuance of warnings
b) Termination of employment
c) Filing detailed affidavits explaining their inaction
d) Financial penalties
Answer: c) Filing detailed affidavits explaining their inaction - Which authority was criticized by the Supreme Court for ignoring misleading advertisements?
a) Ministry of Health and Family Welfare
b) Advertising Standards Council of India
c) Uttarakhand State Licensing Authority
d) Food Safety and Standards Authority of India
Answer: c) Uttarakhand State Licensing Authority