In a recent courtroom development, the Supreme Court of India took a firm stance by refusing to accept the apology of the Indian Medical Association’s President, Dr. RV Asokan, over his controversial comments concerning the Court’s prior observations.
Court Proceedings
During the hearing on Tuesday, Dr. Asokan personally appeared before the bench consisting of Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah after being summoned.
Despite offering an unconditional apology, the justices expressed dissatisfaction, emphasizing the expected responsibility from someone of his stature.
Justice Kohli pointedly noted, “With your experience, Dr. Asokan, we would have expected more sense of responsibility from you.” Justice Amanullah similarly echoed these sentiments, pointing out the similarity in conduct between Dr. Asokan and the founders of Patanjali, which the court had criticized previously.
Unaccepted Apology
The court highlighted that Dr. Asokan’s apology lacked genuineness, questioning why a public apology was not issued prior to the courtroom proceedings. “We have the same to say for your apology, as we did for Patanjali.
It’s a subjudice matter in which you were a party. Your counsel could have asked for expunging remarks. But you went to press. We are not at all happy. We can’t condone so easy,” stated Justice Kohli.
Senior Advocate PS Patwalia, representing Dr. Asokan, pleaded for a second chance, claiming the situation was a naïve mistake on Dr. Asokan’s part. However, this defense was quickly countered by the judges, who firmly remained unconvinced by the justifications provided.
Background of the Dispute
The case originated from a lawsuit filed by IMA against Patanjali Ayurved over what the IMA claimed were misleading claims and disparaging advertisements against the allopathic system of medicines.
The Supreme Court had previously initiated contempt proceedings against Patanjali Ayurved and its founders, Baba Ramdev and Acharya Balkrishna, for continuing to publish misleading medical advertisements despite an undertaking to the Court.
Following intensified scrutiny from the courts towards IMA to regulate its members better, Dr. Asokan publicly criticized the Supreme Court’s observations in a press interview. This led to Patanjali Ayurved filing a contempt application against him for his remarks.
Court’s Broader Concerns
Throughout the hearing, the justices reaffirmed their focus not on Dr. Asokan’s professional competence but purely on his comments about ongoing legal proceedings.
“What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander,” Justice Kohli remarked, stressing the need for equal treatment in the eyes of the law.
Implications for Future Conduct
The unfolding of these events sets a precedent about the legal responsibilities that individuals hold, particularly in high-profile positions, when making public statements related to active court cases.
This decision by the Supreme Court might influence how leaders from various fields address media interactions concerning judicial matters, underlining the paramount importance of restraint and respect for the legal process.
Conclusion
This episode reinforces the judiciary’s stringent expectations of public figures in maintaining decorum while commenting on sub judice matters.
The Court’s refusal to accept Dr. Asokan’s apology serves as a significant reminder of the seriousness with which remarks on pending legal proceedings are treated, spotlighting the intersection of law, professionalism, and public communication.
