On April 29, Asokan said it was “unfortunate” that the SC criticized some of the practices of the association and private doctors.
Advertisersthe spokesperson also bears responsibility misleading advertisingSC says
Patanjali’s senior advocate appearing for him, Mukul Rohatgi, told the bench that they had filed an application urging the court to take judicial notice of the IMA chief’s “wanton and baseless comments”.
“This is a serious problem. They are trying to divert justice… You ask one or two questions and see how they react, as if no one can ask anything,” Rohatgi said. “You can’t say you didn’t know,” Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah told IMA lawyers.
Replying to a query on the SC’s observations during the hearing on April 23, Asokan said that while one finger pointed at Patanjali, the remaining four pointed at the IMA. Asokan said “vague and general statements” were demoralizing private doctors.
In a previous hearing, the bench told the IMA to “put its house in order” and address unethical practices by doctors and hospitals such as prescribing unnecessary and expensive medicines. During the hearing in the Patanjali Ayurveda misleading advertisement case, the judge also said that advertisers and spokespersons are equally responsible for misleading advertisements issued by companies and suggested that celebrities and public figures should take measures while promoting products Act responsibly.
The court said that as per the Cable Networks Rules 1994, advertisers should make a self-declaration before placing their advertisements in the public domain.
