The Uttarakhand High Court annuls summons issued to Patanjali Ayurved, Baba Ramdev, and Divya Pharmacy in a high-profile case involving allegations of deceptive advertising related to Coronil. Learn the court’s rationale and key legal points.

Overview of the Uttarakhand High Court Decision

On June 3, 2025, the Uttarakhand High Court canceled the summons issued by the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) of Haridwar against Patanjali Ayurved, Divya Pharmacy, and their founders Baba Ramdev and Acharya Balkrishna. This legal action was initiated following complaints of deceptive advertisements, particularly concerning the promotion of the controversial product Coronil.

Why Were the Summons Canceled?

Lack of Expert Evidence Against Patanjali’s Advertisements

Justice Vivek Bharti Sharma, who presided over the case, emphasized that the State government failed to provide any expert report proving that Patanjali’s advertisements were false or misleading. The Court stated that merely sending a notice to remove the advertisement without confirming the claims as false does not justify prosecution.

Absence of Specific Allegations Under the Drugs and Magical Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954

The complaint did not include clear accusations of false drug claims required under the Drugs and Magical Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954. Without evidence proving an offense under Sections 3, 4, and 7 of this Act, the Court ruled that the trial court should not have taken cognizance or issued summons.

Legal Issues Highlighted by the Court

Delay in Filing the Complaint Violates Legal Deadlines

Most alleged offenses occurred before April 15, 2023, but the case was acknowledged by the CJM on April 16, 2024. This delay violates Section 468 of the Criminal Procedure Code, India (CrPC), which sets strict timelines for filing cases.

Insufficient Digital Evidence Without Proper Certification

The digital evidence submitted lacked a Section 65B certificate, as mandated by the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, to be admissible in court. This procedural flaw weakened the State’s case significantly.

Multiple Offenses Over Two Years

The complaint involved 20 offenses committed between 2022 and 2024, not constituting a single transaction. The Court found that a single cognizance order was inappropriate for multiple separate offenses.

Background: The State’s Complaint Against Patanjali

The Uttarakhand government filed the complaint in 2024, alleging legal violations related to advertising by Patanjali, Divya Pharmacy, Baba Ramdev, and Acharya Balkrishna. The summons followed the complaint, which was contested in the High Court leading to this landmark judgment.

Conclusion: Impact of the Uttarakhand High Court Ruling

The High Court’s decision to annul the summons against Patanjali and Baba Ramdev highlights the importance of concrete evidence and adherence to legal procedures in cases involving deceptive advertising claims. This ruling serves as a precedent emphasizing that allegations without expert verification and procedural compliance are insufficient for prosecution.