The Supreme Court declared  that "we are not blind" and that "it does not want to be generous" in this case, rejecting yet another round of apologies from Patanjali founders Ramdev and Balkrishna for the company's deceptive advertisements. The court chastised the Uttarakhand licensing authorities for their prolonged inaction against Patanjali and expressed dissatisfaction with the Centre's response. "There's a written apology. They have the wall to their back. Judges Hima Kohli and Amanullah stated, "We decline to accept this, we consider it a deliberate violation of undertaking." The bench observed that Ramdev and Balkrishna had communicated their apologies to the media prior to the commencement of the proceedings. The contemnors did not think it appropriate to submit us the affidavits until the case was before the court. They sent it to the media first, and it wasn't uploaded for us until 7:30 p.m. yesterday. It is evident that they value notoriety," Judge Kohli remarked.Speaking on behalf of the Patanjali founders, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi stated that the apology had been fulfilled and that he was unable to speak for the registry. Judge Amanullah stated, "You are defrauding the affidavit," as he read aloud the affidavits. I'm shocked at who wrote it." When Mr. Rohatgi claimed that there had been a "lapse," the court said, "very small word." How "even heartfelt" is the apology, Justice Amanullah questioned. "We shall say what further has to be said, my lords. He does not practice law as a career. In life, people make mistakes," Mr. Rohatgi retorted. Even after what we told you? Expressing regret is insufficient. You ought to pay the price for disobeying the court's ruling. In this instance, we don't want to be giving," he remarked. The court ruled that the general public needs to be made aware of this. "This involves breaking the law as well as one FMCG. When state authorities requested you to leave, you responded by saying that HC had not taken any coercive action against us. We are incorporating it into your behavior; the bigger picture is how you interact with the public, even when you claim to be acting in good faith." Subsequently, the court addressed the Uttarakhand government, questioning why the license inspectors had not taken action and why three officers needed to be suspended simultaneously. The state's officers had done nothing, according to the court. "We strongly oppose to the term 'bonafide' being applied to officials. We will not treat (it) casually. It threatened to "rip you apart" and said that the cops were merely "pushing files." "The government complained about a deceptive advertisement in a letter to the Uttarakhand licensing authority in 2021. The licensing authority received a response from the company. But the authorities only issued a warning, letting the corporation go. The court stated that the 1954 Act does not include provisions for warning or compounding the offense. Six times this has happened, back and forth, and each time the licensing inspector has said nothing. The officer has not submitted a report. The subsequent appointee behaved in the same manner. It said, "All three of those policemen ought to be suspended immediately, and the licensing body was "in collaboration with the contemnors." The bench declared that there is mockery of the Supreme Court. "You're behaving like a postal worker. Have you consulted a lawyer? Embarrassing of you," it informed the state attorney. The court addressed the authority, "Why don't we agree that you are hand in glove with Patanjali?" It further stated, "You have been playing with people's lives." "Thank God, now you have woken up at last and realise that there is a statute existing," Justice Kohli said in response to the Uttarakhand lawyer's declaration that the court will take action. "What about all the anonymous individuals who have taken these Patanjali medications purported to treat incurable diseases? The judge asked, "Can you do this to an average person?" The licensing body expressed regret to the court and promised to take appropriate action. Subsequently, the Supreme Court stated that Ramdev and Balkrishna attempted to avoid making a court appearance by claiming to be traveling overseas. The "deep slumber" of the state licensing authority was mentioned, along with the "apparent from tone and tenor of the reply" "disdain" displayed by Divya pharmacy towards the state authority's warnings. The court ordered all district ayurvedic and unani officers in office from 2018 to the present to submit responses detailing the steps they took to address the advertisements. On April 16, the court stated that it will issue directions regarding Ramdev and Balkrishna.