Supreme Court Challenges Patanjali: Is Your Apology as Prominent as Your Advertisements?

Size of Apology vs. Advertisement:

• The Supreme Court questioned if Patanjali's apology matched the size and expense of their usual front-page advertisements.
• This reflects doubts about the sincerity of the apology compared to their advertising practices.

Contempt Action:

• Patanjali, Ramdev, and Balkrishna are facing contempt action for continuing objectionable advertisements despite pledging to stop.

Verification of Original Advertisements:

• The court requested the original newspapers containing the apology to verify its size and placement.
• This emphasizes the need for authentic evidence.

Inquiry into AYUSH Ministry's Decision:

• The court asked for an explanation from the AYUSH Ministry for withdrawing Rule 170 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, which dealt with objectionable advertisements.
• This suggests a concern about governmental decisions affecting consumer protection.

Concern Over Misleading Advertisements:

• The court expressed broader concern about FMCG companies misleading consumers, especially regarding products for vulnerable groups.
• This underscores the importance of ethical advertising practices and consumer protection.

Scrutiny of Indian Medical Association (IMA):

• The court highlighted complaints of unethical practices by allopathic doctors associated with the Indian Medical Association (IMA).
• This indicates a focus on ethical standards in the medical field and professional accountability.

Upcoming Hearing and Further Examination:

• The court scheduled a hearing for May 7 to examine the implementation of laws and regulations concerning misleading advertisements by FMCG companies and unethical practices in the medical sector.
• This shows the court's commitment to ensuring accountability and ethical standards in advertising and healthcare.