Patanjali Ayurved, the Indian consumer goods company founded by yoga guru Baba Ramdev, ran advertisements claiming cures for diseases and criticising allopathic medicine. The Indian Medical Association sued. On 21 November 2023, Ramdev and managing director Acharya Balkrishna gave an undertaking to the Supreme Court that they would not issue 'casual statements claiming medicinal efficacy or against any system of medicine'.
The next day, Ramdev held a press conference in Haridwar. On 4 December, Patanjali published another advertisement. The Supreme Court treated both as violations of the undertaking. When Ramdev and Balkrishna sought exemption from personal appearance citing foreign travel, the court noted their flight tickets had been issued the day after their affidavits were sworn — and said they were 'trying to wriggle out' of appearing.
On 10 April 2024, the court refused to accept their 'unconditional' apology affidavits. Justice Hima Kohli called the conduct a 'wilful and deliberate violation', adding: 'don't think your writing unconditional multiple times in the affidavit is enough to satisfy this court.' The court also pulled up the state of Uttarakhand for failing to act against Patanjali's advertising.
The court rejected the apology as procedural: a press conference one day after the undertaking and another ad two weeks later showed wilful violation.
The undertaking was treated as a formality: a press conference was held the very next day, and another ad ran two weeks later
The apology strategy — filing multiple 'unconditional' affidavits — read as procedural rather than substantive, and the court rejected it
The attempt to avoid personal appearance with backdated travel tickets destroyed whatever credibility the apologies had left
State regulators in Uttarakhand had not enforced existing advertising rules, leaving the Supreme Court as the only check
A court undertaking is not a press release — violating it the next day converts a regulatory dispute into contempt, and no number of written apologies substitutes for changed behaviour.
The case was listed for further hearing on 16 April 2024. The Supreme Court ordered affidavits from every official who had held the post of Joint Director of the State Licensing Authority in Haridwar since 2018, explaining what they had done to check misleading advertisements. The case became a reference point in India's ongoing debate over regulation of health claims in advertising.
FOLLOW THE EVIDENCE