2024 Supreme(SC) 666

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
HIMA KOHLI, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, JJ.
In Re : Patanjali Ayurved Limited Through Its Managing Director, Acharya Balkrishna And Baba Ramdev
In The Matter Of :
Indian Medical Association And Another – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India And Others – Respondents
Suo Motu Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 4 of 2024 In Writ Petition (Civil) No. 645 of 2022
Decided on : 13-08-2024

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Contempt of Court – Power of contempt ought to be exercised with caution, care and sparingly – Contempt proceedings are sui generis inasmuch as Law of Evidence and Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 are strictly inapplicable – At the same time, procedure adopted during contempt proceedings must be fair and just.
(2) Contempt of Court – “Willful disobedience” – Mere disobedience of an order may not suffice to qualify as a “civil contempt” within meaning of Section 2(b) of Act – Element of willingness is a prerequisite to bring home charge of contempt.
(3) Contempt of Court – There cannot be a justification and an apology – The two things are incompatible and do not go hand-in-hand.

Headnote:

(A) Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Section 12 – Constitution of India – Article 129 – Contempt of Court – Power of contempt ought to be exercised with caution, care and sparingly – Contemptuous act complained of must be such that would result in obstruction of justice, adversely affect majesty of law and impact dignity of courts of law – Contempt proceedings are sui generis inasmuch as Law of Evidence and Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 are strictly inapplicable – At the same time, procedure adopted during contempt proceedings must be fair and just – Principles governing Rule of law must be extended to party against whom contempt proceedings have been initiated – Party must have every opportunity to place its position before Court – Such a party must not be left unheard under any circumstances. (Paras 22 and 23)

(B) Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Section 2(b) – Contempt of Court – “Willful disobedience” – Expression ‘willfulness’ signifies deliberate action done with evil intent and bad motive or purpose – It should not be an act which requires or is dependent either wholly or in part, on any act or omission of a third party for compliance – A willful act does not encompass any involuntary or negligent actions – To determine as to whether a person is guilty of civil contempt, it is necessary to first hold that person has willfully disobeyed any judgment, decree, order, writ or any other process of Court – Of equal significance is wilful breach of undertaking given to Court – It has to be seen in facts and circumstances of a case as to whether undertaking is one offered to Court or to other side – Mere disobedience of an order may not suffice to qualify as a “civil contempt” within meaning of Section 2(b) of Act – Element of willingness is a prerequisite to bring home charge within scope of the Act – Tendering a qualified apology is akin to a game of dice – It could either have a positive outcome or a negative result – If contemnor tenders conditional apology and expects luck to play role in outcome of such apology, then he should be ready to face consequence of outright rejection. (Paras 36, 38 and 43)

(C) Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Section 12 – Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954 – Sections 3 and 4 – Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Rules, 1955 – Rule 6 – Suo Motu Contempt Petition – Contemnors have continued to issue misleading advertisements and making derogatory statements in respect of other systems of treatment, in breach of undertaking given to Court – Within a week of order passed by Supreme Court, proposed contemnors published advertisements in daily newspapers, yet again claiming that they had manufactured medicines that could cure diseases like high blood pressure, sugar, asthma, thyroid, arthritis which have been listed in Schedules appended to DMR Act and DMR Rules and are specifically prohibited for advertisement, so as to prevent the public from being misled – There cannot be a justification and an apology – The two things are incompatible and do not go hand-in-hand – Wisdom of tendering an unconditional apology dawned belatedly on proposed contemnors, after this Court rejected first attempt made by them to offer a qualified apology, but their subsequent conduct demonstrates that they have made sincere efforts to purge themselves – Apology accepted and contempt proceedings closed with cautionary observations. (Paras 52, 54, 55, 60, 61 and 62)

Facts of the case:

Indian Medication Association, petitioner in writ petition has invoked Article 32 of 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 modern system of medicine in an orchestrated and systematic manner resulting in misleading common man. IMA has claimed that despite lodging multiple complaints and submitting several representations to Union of India and State Authorities, they have declined to take any concrete action, thus compelling them to approach this Court for relief.

Findings of Court:

Though initial conduct of proposed contemnors prior to their tendering an apology to Court showed that same was in violation of the undertakings given to this Court, subsequent thereto, after they tendered an unqualified apology to this Court, efforts have been made by them to take steps to make amends. This was not only by expressing regret for their conduct on affidavit and in person, but also by taking steps to publicize apology tendered by them through advertisements published prominently in the National and Regional newspapers.

Result : Contempt proceedings closed