The Supreme Court on Tuesday directed Indian Medical Association chief RV Asokan to publish an apology in prominent newspapers for his remarks about the proceedings in the contempt case against Patanjali Ayurved, Bar and Bench reported.
A bench of Justices Hima Kohli and Sandeep Mehta said that the apology should be issued by him and not on behalf of the Indian Medical Association. The expenses for publishing the apology in the newspapers should also be borne by Asokan, it added.
The court issued the direction as it heard the contempt case against Patanjali Ayurved co-founders yoga guru Ramdev and Managing Director Balkrishna for publishing misleading advertisements in violation of the Drugs and Magic Remedies Objectionable Advertisements Act.
The Indian Medical Association had accused the company of carrying out a “smear campaign” against modern medicine and the Covid-19 vaccination drive.
However, the bench in May had also pulled up the Indian Medical Association chief for his “disparaging” remarks about the legal proceedings in the case and dismissed his affidavit of apology.
In an interview with PTI in April, Asokan had said that it was “unfortunate” that the court had criticised the Indian Medical Association and some of the practices of private doctors.
His remark was in response to a question about observations made by the bench on April 23. The court had said that while it was pointing one finger at Patanjali, the remaining fingers were pointed at the association.
Asokan told PTI that the “vague and generalised statements” made by the court had demoralised private doctors.
Subsequently, the court had described Asokan’s remarks as “very, very unacceptable”. It had then asked him to publish an apology in prominent newspapers, Bar and Bench reported.
At the hearing on Tuesday, the bench asked the Indian Medical Association, represented by Senior Advocate PS Patwalia, about the details of the apology.
“Except your own in-house publication, where have you published [the apology]?” the court asked. “Your newsletters are not good enough. Was it published in all newspapers where your interview was published?”
The bench then noted that the order asking Asokan to publish an apology was not complied with, according to Bar and Bench.
“Besides the ones you are referring to, which other publications was it [interview] shared with?” the court asked. “You have to send [an apology] to all of them. You cannot just wash your hands off…You are inviting trouble on yourself and we are not taking your apology.”
The court then adjourned the matter. “It is submitted that the contempt proceedings may be deferred to enable the applicant [Asokan] to publish his apology in prominent newspapers and purge himself of the contempt,” the bench said.