i had made a youtube shorts make catchy youtube shorts title (atleast 2 strong # in title), description (use atleast 10 strong # in description) and keywords (separated by comma in para form) to make it very strong contender of going viral on youtube and more strong on search engine and transcription of shorts is "What is Patanjali's case? Can you explain? Have you read Patanjali's case? So what is Patanjali's case? Why is Patanjali so lucky? All of a sudden, where the Supreme Court has said that your apology is worth less than that paper. That statement is very bold and big and it is so big in the media. So what is happening with Patanjali where her apology is worth less than the paper? So a lot of players are there in this case. And we will have to understand a little bit how things are happening. One, so... I made a video on it, Patanjali's one and I thought people will support it. That yes, the Supreme Court did the right thing. You think that the Supreme Court doesn't give judgment. 
When they give judgment, you think that why did they sideline Patanjali? After all these corporates. I thought that they are doing it. Give credit when it's due. Are people getting irritated that why did it happen with Patanjali? Yes, that's why it seems like an Indian brand issue. Why aren't you telling Bonvita? Why aren't you telling anyone else? So, I'll tell you how it happened. It wasn't the first time when Patanjali said it. So, it happens that... This debate is not around ayurvedic, allopathy, homeopathy, modernism, there is no such thing. The law is FSSAI, Food Safety and Standards Authority of India. It says that you can't make ads about some diseases. If you have AIDS or BP, you can't say that you can cure or prevent it. 
So, one of these ads was for diabetes, highly diabetic patients, they said that they were on insulin, that we can cure them. And the law very strictly says that you can't make such an ad, neither for prevention nor for cure. And they were urging people to stop using modern medicine. So, those people who were going to doctors, they stopped going. Now, those people who used insulin, when insulin was discovered, they got a Nobel Prize. So, someone who can cure it, he should also get it. So, they made a proper ad and everything happened. So, they were promoting Ayurvedic treatment and all these things. But they were showing the modern medicine below. A lot of times, all these things happened and they got notices that you should not be doing this. 
Then during the time of corona, it happened that they took out the tablet after coronal. And they said WHO certification. WHO is not a medical body. Its certification has no value. It should be true. There was no certification only. Nothing. Blatant lie. Nothing of that sort. And people were taking it. They put a stamp of WHO on it without WHO's permission. There was nothing. And there were so many people who were not getting injections, thinking that they will be treated with Ayurvedic. And there was nothing in it. Nepal blacklisted Patanjali in 2022. Why is the Supreme Court distributing it? First of all, he was told 5-6 times not to do it. He used to apologize every time, but he didn't do anything. Now, what does FSSAI do? 
It puts on the company that you won't do this. Plus, it puts it on the state government too. That tell your licensing authority to do regular checks and all. So, there were a lot of licensing checks. Like, in their mustard oil, there was no flaw. In cow ghee, there was no flaw. What was the flaw in their cow ghee? It was adulterated or something. Then, in their Maggi, the triple quantity of permissible limit of ash was happening. So there were a lot of flaws but Uttarakhand state government was not taking strict action. Then Supreme Court called them but they didn't come and they were sending apologies. Then Supreme Court had it, that you should be finished. What is happening at home? So Supreme Court gave them notice that come first, answer why you are doing this. 
They ignored it. They sent state government and state government also ignored it. So Supreme Court said that state government and Patanjali both come now. And then I feel that a comparison of Patanjali or Bonvita cannot be done because one, health drink, there is no definition of health drink. It's a drink. And second is, marketing itself as a medicine. So, you can't compare medicine or something optional. You are taking one religiously and the other optionally. So, the owners on Patanjali will definitely be more. The one who should be beaten up should be beaten up fast. Definitely, it should happen more and it's happening right. And I'll say, even if they supply, Novartis because in many cases, in cases of Ranbaxy, In a lot of cases, she is also affected. 
It's not just Patanjali. She was also affected in her silence. In public. Yes. Because she was very active in the advertisement. No other allopathy brand or Ayurvedic brand has done it like Patanjali. So, the more you do, the more you will listen. So, there is no scope of bias. The Supreme Court is doing good to the people. She is telling them that you people Don't fool yourself by writing wrong things. The good thing is that even if people are not liking, that why is it happening, I don't know, this is also a very good thing. This law, FSSAI, what does it say? That you will get a punishment of 6 months or a slight fine. If anything hits in India, there are crores of consumers, you earn crores, if you give a fine of 20,000, then what will happen? 
The laws have to be stringent in this area. So, the only difference from all this will be that FSSAI will be strict now. So, coming back to Now people are saying why are you not saying Bonvita. So Bonvita has been announced that health drink will not happen. Food pharma all the way. Rewanth killed it. All kudos to him. He made, he got a great change. Earlier I read an article about Bonvita that Supreme Court again went to FSSAIQ that you define health drink. There is no category which defines what is a health drink. It's just term. So anyone can put a health drink. Health drink is a scam. It means nothing. So the Supreme Court is saying that you define it. But tell me the claims that are there, why doesn't the court ban them? 
Like Complan used to claim that he will make it longer. Right? For years my family left me with Horlicks and made me drink Complan. I used to not like Complan, I used to love Horlicks. And I was like I want Horlicks, I want to be taller, sharper, stronger, all three. Why should I only be tall? So, Now such people have claimed, is it proven that they do it at all? No. Then how can they claim? So what happens is, your FSSAI agencies, all these bodies are there. So in your law, you also have to understand that legislators' work is to make law. Then comes the role of executors, whose work is to implement the law. So you made the law of FSSAI, you made the whole law, everything is fine. 
People will implement it. If there's a loophole coming, you put it in the parliament. It's not actually the work of the legislator. Like the LGBTQ thing. Legal marriage should be sanctioned or not. The supreme court can't do it. It has to be done by the parliament. People think that the legislator's work is done by the law. Executives also come into this. Why do you have a parliament? The supreme court's work is mainly to review. They won't come to make it. Then why do you have a parliament? Okay, explain me again in basic terms. There is a law. Now this law is that you can't promote anything wrong to the children, you can't give them any junk. Example. So how is this made? In how many parts is it divided? 
Who executes it? Who makes it? Everything is in one piece. In easy language, like my grandfather can understand. So we have our own parliament. We are going to spend more than 60,000 crores and get them appointed for the elections this year. We are going to spend 60,000 crores and get them appointed for the elections. Yes, the total cost of my vote is 700 rupees. It was in 2019, it must have increased now. So, we vote for them and make them sit only to make better laws and policies for India. After that, whether these policies and laws are being made right or not, this is the job of the judiciary. Judiciary, Supreme Court, all the courts. We think that if the Supreme Court's job is to make the law, it is not like that. 
The Supreme Court's main job is to review. Whether it is right or not. Yes. So, all are parallel. That is, the Supreme Court has become supreme. All are parallel. So, Parliament makes laws. You challenge, like the Aadhaar card judgment. If any law is coming, let's take farm laws. So, Parliament made farm laws. You will challenge farm laws in the Supreme Court if you don't agree with it. And the Supreme Court will say whether it is right or not, whether it is constitutional or not. So, it only gives a tick. The main task is the same. But the task of making the law is of the parliament. Now, this thing of claims for children, we have made an agency for that. Now, if that agency is toothless, it is not able to take that action, then the parliament should do something about it. 
If you say, for example, take it according to pets, according to cruelty, If you kill a cow or a dog, there's a fine of 50 rupees. So, there's a law. If you don't file a fine of 50 rupees, the court will ask you to pay 50 rupees. But if you bring that law to the human level, then it's the work of the parliament. So, it is the work of the parliamentarians. Not everyone is doing that. So, parliament... That's why I think, right now, there should be a lot of voters. There should be a lot of first-time voters. And they've got great responsibility. So, we all question that Why didn't this happen? Why didn't that happen? When you voted, did you think about the plan for 2047? 
What policies do we need for the next 5 years? Do you have those policies? But if something comes, then just as a trend, you have to troll that thing. If you want to see more such insightful shots and clips, then subscribe to this channel.