E-Paper
'What are you doing?': SC pans IMA chief over adverse remarks on Patanjali misleading ads case
The Supreme Court said why did the IMA chief gave the interview on the eve of the Patanjali case hearing.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday slammed Indian Medical Association (IMA) president RV Asokan for his adverse remarks against the court in the Patanjali misleading advertisements case.
During the hearing today, the Supreme Court questioned senior advocate PS Patwalia about Asokan's comments. Patwalia appeared for the doctors' body.
The lawyer said his client's remarks were rather not fortunate. "You are very mild with your words," the Supreme Court replied.
The Supreme Court asked why did the IMA chief give the interview on the eve of the Patanjali case hearing last month.
IMA's lawyer said his client was called for an interview by PTI. He said the doctor “fell into” what he called a "leading question".
"A doctor falling?" Justice Amanullah said.
The court today pointed out that it was the doctors' body that had approached it against Acharya Balkrishna-led company for publishing misleading advertisements detrimental to modern medicine.
"You are the one coming to the court and saying that the other side are the ones misleading the public by advertisements, running your system of medicine down. What are you doing?" the bench said.
When RV Asokan's lawyer said the IMA president was praising the court, the bench said it didn't want any pat on "our back from anybody".
The court said the IMA chief's remarks were "very, very unacceptable".
Meanwhile, senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for Patanjali, told the bench that they have filed an application urging the court to take judicial notice of the "wanton and unwarranted comments" made by the IMA president.
What did RV Asokan say?
On April 23, the Supreme Court, while hearing the Patanjali misleading advertisements case, had called out certain unethical practices by doctors.
In the interview later, Asokan said the "vague and generalised statements" had demoralised private doctors.
"We sincerely believe they need to look at what was the material before them. They perhaps did not consider that this was not the issue that was before them in the court. You can say anything but still a majority of doctors are conscientious... practising according to ethics and principles. It does not behove the Supreme Court to take a broadside against the medical profession of the country which, after all, sacrificed so many lives for the Covid war," he had said.
With inputs from PTI
