TrendingVideosIndia
Opinions | CommentEditorialsThe MiddleLetters to the EditorReflections
Sports
State | Himachal PradeshPunjabJammu & KashmirHaryanaChhattisgarhMadhya PradeshRajasthanUttarakhandUttar Pradesh
City | ChandigarhAmritsarJalandharLudhianaDelhiPatialaBathindaShaharnama
World | United StatesPakistan
Diaspora
Features | The Tribune ScienceTime CapsuleSpectrumIn-DepthTravelFood
Business | My MoneyAutoZone
UPSC | Exam ScheduleExam Mentor
Don't Miss
Advertisement

Is apology same size as ads, court asks Patanjali co-founders Ramdev, Balkrishna

Unlock Exclusive Insights with The Tribune Premium

Take your experience further with Premium access. Thought-provoking Opinions, Expert Analysis, In-depth Insights and other Member Only Benefits
Yearly Premium ₹999 ₹349/Year
Yearly Premium $49 $24.99/Year
Advertisement

New Delhi, April 23

Advertisement

Having faced the wrath of the Supreme Court over publication of “misleading” advertisements, Patanjali Ayurved and its co-founders Swami Ramdev and Acharya Balkrishna on Tuesday told the Supreme Court that the company had published an unconditional apology in 67 newspapers across India.

Advertisement

A Bench of Justice Hima Kohli and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, which had on April 16 said that the proposed contemnors were “not off the hook”, sought to know why the apology was published only yesterday.

“Was it of the same size as your earlier ads?” asked Justice Kohli referring to the “misleading” advertisements that were published by Patanjali Ayurved in newspapers in December last year. As senior counsel Mukul Rohatgi said an apology had been published in 67 papers at the cost of tens of lakhs of rupees, Justice Kolhi asked him to bring on record a copy of the ads.

“Cut the actual newspaper clippings and keep them handy. For you to photocopy by enlarging, it may not impress us. We want to see the actual size of the ad. When you issue an apology, it doesn’t mean that we have to see it through a microscope,” Justice Kohli said. Noting that the said advertisements were not on record, the Bench directed that the same should be collated and filed in two days and posted the matter for further hearing on April 30.

Advertisement

Advertisement
Tags :
SupremeCourt
Show comments
Advertisement