Uttarakhand High Court Quashes Summons Against Patanjali, Ramdev & Balkrishna In Misleading Ads Row: “No Proof, No Case” -

Uttarakhand High Court cancelled summons issued to Patanjali, Baba Ramdev, and others in a false advertisement case, saying there was no expert proof. The court found the trial court order legally weak and beyond the time limit allowed by law.

Thank you for reading this post, don’t forget to subscribe!

Uttarakhand High Court Quashes Summons Against Patanjali, Ramdev & Balkrishna in Misleading Ads Row: “No Proof, No Case”

Nainital: The Uttarakhand High Court on June 3, 2025, canceled the summons earlier issued by the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Haridwar, to Patanjali Ayurved, Divya Pharmacy, and their founders Baba Ramdev and Acharya Balkrishna, in a case alleging the companies of spreading misleading advertisements, including promotion of the controversial product Coronil.

ALSO READ: Kerala Court Issues Arrest Warrant Against Baba Ramdev For Misleading Patanjali Ads

Court’s Key Reasoning

The High Court, led by Justice Vivek Bharti Sharma, observed that the case filed by the State government did not include any expert report to prove that Patanjali’s advertisements were actually false or misleading.

“Merely writing letter to the petitioner firm that the advertisement should be removed without stating specifically that the claim made in the advertisements were false, does not give reasons to prosecute the petitioner firm, that too, when there is no report of experts about the falsity or of its being misleading,”

-the Court said.

No Clear Legal Basis Found in Complaint

The Court pointed out that the complaint lacked specific charges related to false claims about drugs, which are required to invoke the Drugs and Magical Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954.

“As there is no allegation that how the advertisement was false and misleading so as to constitute the offence punishable under Sections 3, 4 & 7 of ‘1954 Act’ then there was no occasion for the trial court to take the cognizance and summon the petitioners to face trial,”

-it added.

ALSO READ: Baba Ramdev to Take Down Rooh Afza Videos After High Court Slams ‘Sharbat Jihad’ Remark

Supreme Court Mention Declared Misplaced

The High Court also disagreed with the State’s use of a previous Supreme Court observation, where Ramdev and Balkrishna were noted to have committed contempt of court by continuing misleading promotions.

“With utmost reverence to the observation of the Hon’ble Apex Court, the submission of learned Deputy Advocate General for the State is misplaced. This Court has to see whether the impugned order of cognizance and summoning passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar on the Complaint Case filed by the State is lawful, correct, proper and legal or suffers from any illegality. This petition has to be decided at the anvil of this test only. Inviting the observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while deciding this petition under Section 528 of B.N.S.S., shall be extraneous,”

-the Court said.

Background of the Case

The State of Uttarakhand had filed a complaint in 2024, alleging that Patanjali, Divya Pharmacy, Ramdev, and Balkrishna had committed 20 legal violations related to advertisements between 2022 and 2024.

On April 16, 2024, the CJM took cognizance of the complaint and issued summons to the accused. However, this decision was later challenged in the High Court.

ALSO READ: Delhi High Court Criticises Baba Ramdev Over Remarks Against Hamdard’s Rooh Afza, Calls “It Shocks Conscience Of Court”

No Proof Ads Were Misleading

Interestingly, even the State government admitted during the hearing that their complaint did not claim how the ads were false or misleading.

Justice Sharma noted that the trial court had not even explained what evidence was used to take the cognizance.

“This cognizance order merely says that on the basis of the complaint and available evidences, the cognizance under Section 190(1)(a) of Cr.P.C. is taken. However, this cognizance order does not specify that what were the evidences available to the trial court to take the cognizance in the impugned order,”

-the Court said.

Case Also Hit by Limitation Period

Another legal flaw highlighted was the delay in filing the case. Most alleged offences happened before April 15, 2023, but the court took cognizance more than a year later, violating Section 468 of Cr.P.C., which sets time limits for taking legal action.

“As per the complaint case filed in court, most of the offences were allegedly committed by the petitioners prior to 15.04.2023; that means more than one year before the date when cognizance was taken. Therefore, no cognizance of these offences could have been taken by the trial court in the light of Section 468 of Cr.P.C.. But the trial court has taken the cognizance for all the offences including the offence cognizance of which could not be taken because of limitation, by a composite order. Therefore, the impugned order of cognizance dated 16.04.2024 is bad in law and cannot be sustained.”

Digital Evidence Also Flawed

The Court also found that the digital proof submitted was legally incomplete, lacking a Section 65B certificate under the Indian Evidence Act, which is mandatory for using digital files in court.

Additionally, the 20 offences mentioned in the complaint were not part of one transaction and occurred over two years, which made a single cognizance order invalid.

“Therefore, in the considered view of this Court, the composite order of taking cognizance and summoning for more than three offences spread over the period of more than two years is not permissible under the law. Hence, this composite order of taking cognizance dated 16.04.2024 is unsustainable and liable to be set aside on this count also,”

-the Court ruled.

ALSO READ: ANALYSIS | Supreme Court’s Time Ceiling on Property: “Sale Deed Must Be Registered in 4 Months or Becomes Invalid”