New Delhi: The Supreme Court exempted on tuesday Baba Ramdev and Acharya Balkrishna From personal appearance In the ongoing hearing in Patanjali fake advertising case,

Both have been given more time to Patanjali to file their affidavits showing what steps it has taken to withdraw the advertisements of the products whose licenses have been suspended and to recall the medicines.

Earlier SC had asked Ramdev And Balkrishna To appear in court in person during the hearing.

The case relates to a petition filed Indian Medical Association Action sought against Patanjali for alleged conduct smear campaign against modern medicine And this COVID-19 vaccination campaign,

The Supreme Court had taken action against Patanjali and both for disobeying its orders and had asked them to publish advertisements in newspapers apologizing for this. At the same time, it also slammed some doctors practicing modern medicine.

However, in its last hearing the apex court had strongly criticized IMA President RV Ashokan To target the Supreme Court in an interview to news agency PTI.

Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for Patanjali, said, “This is a very serious issue. They are trying to divert the course of justice… Your Excellency asked one or two questions and see how they react.” It’s like no one can ask anything.”

Rohatgi sought judicial notice on the “undesirable and inappropriate comments” made by the IMA president and action against the IMA.

In a conversation with PTI editors for his program ‘@4 Parliament Street’ on April 29, the IMA president had said it was “unfortunate” that the Supreme Court criticized some of the practices of the association and private doctors.

Ashokan was responding to a question about the Supreme Court’s comments during a hearing on April 23 when he had said that while it was pointing one finger at Patanjali, the remaining four fingers were towards IMA.

“Vague and generalized statements” have discouraged private doctors, Ashokan said.

“We honestly believe that he needed to look at what material was in front of him. He probably didn’t consider that this was not the issue that was before him in court.

“You can say anything but still most of the doctors are dutiful…work as per ethics and principles. It does not suit the Supreme Court to take a blanket stand against the medical profession of the country which has ultimately taken the lives of so many Lee for the COVID war,” he had said.