Uttarakhand High Court Quashes Summons Against Patanjali, Ramdev In Misleading Ads Case
The Uttarakhand High Court set aside the summons issued by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar, against Patanjali Ayurved, Divya Pharmacy, and their promoters, Baba Ramdev and Acharya Balkrishna.
The case pertained to allegations of publishing misleading advertisements to promote various products, including the controversial “Coronil” kit.
A Bench of Justice Vivek Bharti Sharma said, “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.”
Advocate Piyush Garg appeared for the Petitioners and Deputy Advocate General Deepak Bisht appeared for the Respondent.
The Court held that the trial court had erred in taking cognizance of the complaint in the absence of any expert report or specific allegations detailing how the advertisements were false or misleading.
The High Court also noted that in order to attract provisions under the Drugs and Magical Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954, there must be a clear assertion that false claims were made about a drug. In this case, the complaint lacked such a foundational claim.
The Court added, “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.”
The Court further clarified that the State’s reliance on the Supreme Court’s recent observations that Ramdev and Balkrishna had committed contempt of court by publishing misleading advertisements was irrelevant in the context of the current criminal proceedings.
The Court said, “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 added, “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.”
Despite this, the trial court had taken cognizance of all 20 alleged offences in a single composite order, which the High Court found legally untenable.
The Court also noted the absence of a Section 65B certificate under the Indian Evidence Act, which is mandatory for admitting digital evidence, such as online promotional videos. Moreover, the Court found that the 20 offences listed in the complaint were unrelated and could not be grouped as part of the same transaction, rendering the composite cognizance order impermissible under the law.
“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 said.
As a result, the High Court quashed the summoning and cognizance order issued by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar, holding it to be legally unsustainable.
Cause Title: Patanjali Ayurved Ltd. & Ors. v. State of Uttarakhand, [2025:UHC:4704]
