Following a public apology from Ramdev and Balkrishna, the Supreme Court required Patanjali to issue apologies in newspapers and criticized the Central government for inadequate enforcement of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules of 1945.

Patanjali and its founders have faced numerous legal issues over the past two years regarding their advertisements, drawing national attention after the Indian Medical Association (IMA) filed a plea against them.

This incident follows a warning from the Supreme Court on January 15, 2025, urging stronger action against misleading medical claims in advertisements.

The case alleges that Patanjali promoted products with unsubstantiated claims, including cures for high blood pressure and diabetes, violating the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act of 1954.

On January 16, 2025, a Kerala court issued bailable warrants against yoga guru Baba Ramdev, Acharya Balkrishna, and Divya Pharmacy due to their failure to appear in court.

Despite receiving court summons, none of the accused attended the hearing, prompting the issuance of the warrant; the next hearing is scheduled for February 1, 2025.

While Baba Ramdev's Patanjali has gained significant market share by promoting Ayurvedic products, the ongoing legal cases challenge the brand's credibility and ethical marketing practices.

The warrants were issued by the Judicial First Class Magistrate II in Palakkad after the accused did not comply with a summons for personal appearance.

The judiciary's increasing scrutiny signifies a potential shift towards stricter regulations on misleading advertising, particularly in the health sector, urging companies to substantiate their claims.

The Supreme Court temporarily banned Patanjali's misleading advertisements and issued contempt notices due to the nature of their claims.

These legal issues highlight a broader concern regarding accountability in the Indian advertising sector, particularly for health-related products, which can mislead vulnerable consumers.

The court noted that both the complainant and the accused were absent during the hearing.