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.