Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(SC) 666

HIMA KOHLI, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH
In Re : Patanjali Ayurved Limited Through Its Managing Director, Acharya Balkrishna And Baba Ramdev – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India – Respondent

Advocates appeared:
For the etitioner(s) : By Courts Motion, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Vipin Sanghi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Balbir Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Simranjeet Singh, Adv. Mr. Gautam Talukdar, AOR Mr. Raushal Kumar, Adv. Ms. Apurbaa Dutta, Adv. Ms. Neha Gupta, Adv. Ms. Smita Jain, Adv. Mr. Rishabh Pant, Adv. Mr. Rohit Gandhi, Adv. Mr. Naman Tandon, Adv. Mr. Yajat Gulia, Adv.

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - Policy on contempt proceedings: power must be exercised with caution, fair procedure, and due process. (!) (!) - Distinction between wilful disobedience of a court order and breach of an undertaking to the court; two separate categories under Section 2(b). (!) (!) - Willful disobedience requires a deliberate act with evil intent; mere disobedience or third-party reliance not enough. (!) (!) - Undertakings given to the court are treated differently from undertakings to a party; breach of court undertakings can constitute contempt. (!) (!) - Qualified apologies are generally not accepted; unconditional/apology should be bona fide, timely, and demonstrably contrite. (!) (!) (!) (!) - Court’s approach to apologies: evaluate conduct before and after apology, severity, and impact on justice; can reject hollow or belated apologies. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) - Facts: undertaking on 21 Nov 2023 prohibiting advertisements/claims; subsequent advertising and press conference by Patanjali violated that undertaking and DMR Act provisions (Sections 3/4, Rule 6). (!) (!) (!) - Specific advertisements and press conference alleged to violate DMR Act and Rules by claiming cures for diseases listed in Schedule; actions led to contempt notices and proposed contempt against Patanjali, Balkrishna, and Ramdev. (!) (!) (!) - Court ultimately closed contempt proceedings after accepting unconditional apologies and noting steps to remediate (advertisement withdrawal, public apologies, recalls). (!) (!) (!)

Question 1?

How to determine whether conduct constitutes "willful disobedience" or "willful breach of an undertaking" under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 in the context of undertakings given to the Court?

Question 2?

What is the standard for accepting or rejecting an unconditional/unqualified apology in contempt proceedings, and when can such an apology lead to closure of the matter?

Question 3?

What actions by Patanjali and its officers violated the undertaking and relevant DMR Act provisions, and what steps are required to remedy or recall offending advertisements and statements?

JUDGMENT :

HIMA KOHLI, J.

1. This order shall dispose of the suo motu contempt proceedings initiated by this Court against the proposed contemnors, Patanjali Ayurved Limited¹[For short ‘Patanjali’], Acharya Balkrishna, Managing Director of Patanjali and Baba Ramdev. The circumstances leading to initiation of contempt proceedings against the aforesaid parties needs some elucidation.

A. BACKDROP

2. Indian Medication Association²[In short “IMA”], the petitioner in the writ petition³[Writ Petition (Civil) No. 645 of 2022] has invoked Article 32 of the Constitution of India for raising a grievance against Patanjali, its Managing Director – Acharya Balkrishna and its primary proponent, Baba Ramdev stating that they have been indulging in a campaign of misinformation and disparagement against the modern system of medicine in an orchestrated and systematic manner resulting in misleading the common man. IMA has claimed that despite lodging multiple complaints and submitting several representations to the Union of India and the State Authorities, they have declined to take any concrete action, thus compelling them to approach this Court for relief.

B. PROCEEDINGS DATED 21ST NOVEMBER, 2023

3. Not

Click Here to Read the rest of this document