Hearing the misleading ads case against Patanjali Ayurved, the Supreme Court today asked if the size of an apology it put out in newspapers today was similar to its full-page advertisements of its products. Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for Patanjali founders Ramdev and Balkrishna, said they have filed a fresh set of apologies before the court. The court has listen the matter for further hearing on April 30.
Here are the Highlights on Patanjali Misleading Ads Case:
Get NDTV UpdatesTurn on notifications to receive alerts as this story develops.
Supreme Court To Hear Case On April 30
The Supreme Court has listed the Patanjali misleading ads case for further hearing on April 30.
Supreme Court Questions AYUSH Ministry Over Use Of Law Against Misleading Ads
"Why did the AYUSH Ministry decide to withdraw Rule 170 (prohibition of advertisement of Ayurvedic, Siddha and Unani medicines without the approval of the State Licensing Authority)? - Do you have the right to say not to follow the existing rule? Is it not arbitrary? Aren't you more concerned about revenue than what gets published?," Supreme Court asked the government.
"Ministries Will Have To File Affidavits": Supreme Court On Misleading Acts
"Ministries will have to file an affidavit regarding the above laws and the action taken by them to prevent misuse of data, which is currently limited to the period after 2018. Licensing authorities of all states/UTs should be made parties," the Supreme Court bench said.
"Centre Should Wake Up": Supreme Court Questions Government Over Misleading AdsSupreme Court questioned the health ministry over misleading ads. "You must explain what the Ad Council has done to combat such ads and how members have endorsed such products. We are not just looking at these people (Patanjali) Now we are seeing everyone. We are looking at children, babies, women and no one can be taken for a ride. Centre should wake up on this," the court said.
"Gave Ads In 67 Newspapers": Ramdev's Lawyer On Public ApologySenior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for Patanjali founders Ramdev and Balkrishna, said they have filed a fresh set of apologies before the court.
Ramdev's lawyer: We gave ads in 67 newspapers and ten lakhs of rupees were spent
Supreme Court - Are these advertisements the same size?
Ramdev's lawyer - You usually serve full-page ads.
SC: Were they published prominently? Were they published with same font and size as your other advertisements?
RL: We spent lakhs and lakhs of rupees.
SC: We are not bothered. We have got an application seeking imposition of Rs 1000 crore fine on IMA for filing such a petition against Patanjali. Is it a proxy plea?