# 2024 INSC 605

- **Citation:** 2024 INSC 605
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2024-08-13
- **Bench:** Hima Kohli, Ahsanuddin Amanullah
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/2024-insc-605-38109
- **Pages:** 50

## Headnote

In violation of the undertaking dtd. 21.11.2023 given to this Court,
the proposed contemnors held a press conference on 22.11.2023
making casual public statements regarding the efficacy of
particular medicines manufactured by them and making derogatory
statements in respect of other systems of treatment; and also
continued to issue misleading advertisements. Conduct of the
proposed contemnors, if was in wilful breach of the undertaking
given to the Court and contumacious.
Headnotes†
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - In the writ petition filed by
Indian Medical Association, the proposed contemnors gave
an undertaking dtd. 21.11.2023 to this Court that Patanjali
shall not violate any laws relating to advertising or branding
of products manufactured and marketed by it and that no
casual statements claiming medicinal efficacy or against any
system of medicine will be released to the media - However,
in violation thereof they held a press conference on 22.11.2023
and further continued issuing misleading advertisements and
make incorrect assertions and misrepresentations describing
their various products as a permanent solution to particular
ailments specifically listed in the Schedules appended to the
Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement)
Act, 1954 and the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable
Advertisement) Rules, 1955 - Suo motu contempt proceedings
initiated - If the proposed contemnors committed wilful breach
of the undertakings given to the Court:
* Author
402
[2024] 8 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Held: Despite the clear, categorical and unambiguous assurance
given by Patanjali to the Court and knowing that the said assurance
was given by its counsel on instructions and further, that Patanjali
was bound down to such an assurance, there was no justification for
the proposed contemnors to have called for a Press Conference on
the very next day, i.e., on 22.11.2023 - The proposed contemnors
were aware of the undertaking given on their behalf, still a positive
assertion was made by them in the Press Conference that they have
medicines that could cure blood pressure, thyroid, type-I diabetes
and asthma which was in violation of the provisions of the DMR Act
and Rules - Describing the products manufactured by Patanjali as
a "permanent solution" in respect of ailments listed in the Schedule
appended to the DMR Act and Rules which prohibit advertisement
of drugs for treatment of particular diseases and disorders including
those that were referred to by the proposed contemnors in the Press
Conference, again amounted to violating the undertaking given to
the Court - Furthermore, within a week of the order passed by
this Court, the proposed contemnors published advertisements in
the daily newspapers on 04.12.2023, yet again claiming that they
manufactured medicines that could cure diseases like high blood
pressure, sugar, asthma, thyroid, arthritis listed in the Schedules
appended to the DMR Act and DMR Rules and are specifically
prohibited for advertisement, so as to prevent the public from being
misled - The advertisement in question was clearly a violation of
the undertaking given by the proposed contemnors - On facts,
though the initial conduct of the proposed contemnors prior to their
tendering an apology to the Court showed that the same was in
violation of the undertakings given, subsequent thereto, after they
tendered an unqualified apology to this Court, efforts were made
by them to take steps to make amends by expressing regret for
their conduct on affidavit and in person and also by taking steps
to publicize the apology tendered by them through advertisements
published prominently in the National and Regional newspapers -
After this Court rejected the first attempt made by them to offer a
qualified apology, their subsequent conduct demonstrates that they
have made sincere efforts to purge themselves - Apology tendered
is accepted and the matter is closed - Proposed contemnors
cautioned to strictly abid

## Text

_Characters 0–39,977 of 102,090. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39977 for what follows._

[2024] 8 S.C.R. 401 : 2024 INSC 605
In Re : Patanjali Ayurved Limited Through Its Managing
Director, Acharya Balkrishna and Baba Ramdev
In The Matter Of: Indian Medical Association and Another
v.
Union of India and Others
Suo Motu Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 4 of 2024
In
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 645 of 2022
13 August 2024
[Hima Kohli* and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
In violation of the undertaking dtd. 21.11.2023 given to this Court,
the proposed contemnors held a press conference on 22.11.2023
making casual public statements regarding the efficacy of
particular medicines manufactured by them and making derogatory
statements in respect of other systems of treatment; and also
continued to issue misleading advertisements. Conduct of the
proposed contemnors, if was in wilful breach of the undertaking
given to the Court and contumacious.
Headnotes†
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - In the writ petition filed by
Indian Medical Association, the proposed contemnors gave
an undertaking dtd. 21.11.2023 to this Court that Patanjali
shall not violate any laws relating to advertising or branding
of products manufactured and marketed by it and that no
casual statements claiming medicinal efficacy or against any
system of medicine will be released to the media - However,
in violation thereof they held a press conference on 22.11.2023
and further continued issuing misleading advertisements and
make incorrect assertions and misrepresentations describing
their various products as a permanent solution to particular
ailments specifically listed in the Schedules appended to the
Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement)
Act, 1954 and the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable
Advertisement) Rules, 1955 - Suo motu contempt proceedings
initiated - If the proposed contemnors committed wilful breach
of the undertakings given to the Court:
* Author
402
[2024] 8 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Held: Despite the clear, categorical and unambiguous assurance
given by Patanjali to the Court and knowing that the said assurance
was given by its counsel on instructions and further, that Patanjali
was bound down to such an assurance, there was no justification for
the proposed contemnors to have called for a Press Conference on
the very next day, i.e., on 22.11.2023 - The proposed contemnors
were aware of the undertaking given on their behalf, still a positive
assertion was made by them in the Press Conference that they have
medicines that could cure blood pressure, thyroid, type-I diabetes
and asthma which was in violation of the provisions of the DMR Act
and Rules - Describing the products manufactured by Patanjali as
a "permanent solution" in respect of ailments listed in the Schedule
appended to the DMR Act and Rules which prohibit advertisement
of drugs for treatment of particular diseases and disorders including
those that were referred to by the proposed contemnors in the Press
Conference, again amounted to violating the undertaking given to
the Court - Furthermore, within a week of the order passed by
this Court, the proposed contemnors published advertisements in
the daily newspapers on 04.12.2023, yet again claiming that they
manufactured medicines that could cure diseases like high blood
pressure, sugar, asthma, thyroid, arthritis listed in the Schedules
appended to the DMR Act and DMR Rules and are specifically
prohibited for advertisement, so as to prevent the public from being
misled - The advertisement in question was clearly a violation of
the undertaking given by the proposed contemnors - On facts,
though the initial conduct of the proposed contemnors prior to their
tendering an apology to the Court showed that the same was in
violation of the undertakings given, subsequent thereto, after they
tendered an unqualified apology to this Court, efforts were made
by them to take steps to make amends by expressing regret for
their conduct on affidavit and in person and also by taking steps
to publicize the apology tendered by them through advertisements
published prominently in the National and Regional newspapers -
After this Court rejected the first attempt made by them to offer a
qualified apology, their subsequent conduct demonstrates that they
have made sincere efforts to purge themselves - Apology tendered
is accepted and the matter is closed - Proposed contemnors
cautioned to strictly abide by the terms of their undertakings -
Contempt notices issued to the proposed contemnors discharged,
contempt proceedings closed. [Paras 52-54, 60-62]
Contempt of Court - Apology - Qualified/conditional apology
vis-à-vis unconditional apology:
[2024] 8 S.C.R.
403
In Re: Patanjali Ayurved Ltd. Through Its Mangg. Dir., Acharya Balkrishna & Baba Ramdev
in The Matter of: Indian Medical Asso. and another v. Union of India and others
Held: Any apology tendered by a party in contempt proceedings
must be unconditional and unqualified - Such an apology must
also demonstrate that it has been made with a bona fide intention
and not just to wriggle out of a tight situation - There cannot be a
justification and an apology - The two things are incompatible and
do not go hand-in-hand - In the present case, though the proposed
contemnor purportedly tendered an unqualified apology on behalf
of Patanjali for the breach of statement recorded in the order dated
21.11.2023, the said affidavit was rejected as the deponent had
tried to justify his conduct by seeking to offer an explanation for
the advertisements issued, which is impermissible - Thus, the
conditional apology tendered by the proposed contemnor was
rejected. [Paras 43, 55]
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Constitution of India - Article
129 - Power of contempt - Exercise of - Discussed.
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - s.2(b) - Wilful disobedience -
Civil contempt - When committed - Circumstances enumerated.
Words and Phrases - "Undertaking" - Definition discussed -
Undertaking given by an Advocate on behalf of a client:
Held: If duly and properly given has the same effect as one given
by the client - Whether a statement made by a party or its counsel
could amount to an undertaking, would depend on the words used
in the statement made and the facts and circumstances of a case -
If a party or the advocate acts in such a manner so as to convey
to the Court a firm conviction that an undertaking is being given
regardless of the fact that the word "undertaking" has not been
specifically mentioned, that party will be bound down and it will be
no answer that he did not think that he was giving it or that he was
misunderstood - Furthermore, an undertaking given to the Court
has the same force as an order of the Court and breach thereof
would amount to contempt in the same manner as a breach of
an injunction. [Para 50]
Case Law Cited
Murray and Company v. Ashok Kr. Newatia and Another [2000]
1 SCR 367 : (2000) 2 SCC 367; Pushpaben and Another v.
Narandas Badiani and Another [1979] 3 SCR 636 : (1979) 2
SCC 394; Reliance Petrochemicals Limited v. Proprietors of Indian
Express Newspapers, Bombay Pvt. Ltd. and Others [1988] Supp.
3 SCR 212 : (1988) 4 SCC 592; Anil Ratan Sarkar and Others v.
404
[2024] 8 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Hirak Ghosh and Others [2002] 2 SCR 346 : (2002) 4 SCC 21;
Ram Kishan v. Tarun Bajaj and Others [2014] 1 SCR 538 : (2014)
16 SCC 204; Hon'ble Shri Justice C.S. Karnan, in Re (2017) 7
SCC 1; Chairman, West Bengal Administrative Tribunal and Another
v. SK. Monobbor Hossain and Another (2012) 11 SCC 761; Patel
Rajnikant Dhulabhai and Another v. Patel Chandrakant Dhulabhai
and Others [2008] 10 SCR 1169 : (2008) 14 SCC 561; Rama
Narang v. Ramesh Narang and Another [2006] 3 SCR 1068 :
(2006) 11 SCC 114; Balwantbhai Somabhai Bhandari v. Hiralal
Somabhai [2023] 11 SCR 1064 : (2023) SCC OnLine SC 1139;
Niaz Mohammad and Others v. State of Haryana and Others [1994]
Supp. 3 SCR 720 : (1994) 6 SCC 332; Ashok Paper Kamgar
Union v. Dharam Godha and Others (2003) 11 SCC 1; Babu Ram
Gupta v. Sudhir Bhasin and Another [1979] 3 SCR 685 : (1980) 3
SCC 47; M.Y. Shareef and Another v. Hon'ble Judges of the High
Court of Nagpur and Others [1955] 1 SCR 757 : (1954) 2 SCC 444;
Priya Gupta and Another v. Additional Secretary, Ministry of Health
and Family Welfare and Others [2012] 12 SCR 818 : (2013) 11
SCC 404; Bal Kishan Giri v. State of Uttar Pradesh [2014] 6 SCR
545 : (2014) 7 SCC 280; T.M.A. Pai Foundation and Others v.
State of Karnataka and Others [1995] Suppl. 1 SCR 283 : (1995)
4 SCC 1 - referred to.
Suman Chadha and Another v. Central Bank of India (2018) SCC
OnLine Del 11536 - referred to.
Parashuram Detaram Shamdasani v. King-Emperor (1945) A.C.
264; M v. Home Office (1992) Q.B. 270 - referred to.
Books and Periodicals cited
Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition; Osborn's Concise Law
Dictionary, 10th Edition.
List of Acts
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971; Constitution of India; Drugs and
Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954; Drugs
and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Rules, 1955.
List of Keywords
Contempt; Contempt of Court; Proposed contemnors; Misleading
advertisements; Misleading advertisements by Patanjali;
Undertaking; Breach of an undertaking; Contumacious conduct/acts;
Wilful disobedience; Civil contempt; Disobedience of judgement/
[2024] 8 S.C.R.
405
In Re: Patanjali Ayurved Ltd. Through Its Mangg. Dir., Acharya Balkrishna & Baba Ramdev
in The Matter of: Indian Medical Asso. and another v. Union of India and others
decree, direction/order/writ/other process of a Court; Wilful breach of
an undertaking given to the Court; Violation of an undertaking given
to the Court; Undertaking given by Advocate on behalf of a client;
Apology; Qualified apology; Conditional apology; Unconditional
apology; Unqualified apology.
Case Arising From
INHERENT JURISDICTION: Suo Motu Contempt Petition (Civil)
No.4 of 2024
In
Writ Petition (Civil) No.645 of 2022
Appearances for Parties
By Courts Motion.
Mukul Rohatgi, Vipin Sanghi, Balbir Singh, Sr. Advs., Simranjeet
Singh, Gautam Talukdar, Raushal Kumar, Ms. Apurbaa Dutta, Ms.
Neha Gupta, Ms. Smita Jain, Rishabh Pant, Rohit Gandhi, Naman
Tandon, Yajat Gulia, Advs. for the Respondents.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
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 Limited,1 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 Association,2 the petitioner in the writ petition3 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
1
For short 'Patanjali'
2
In short "IMA"
3
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 645 of 2022
406
[2024] 8 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
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.
Notice was issued on the writ petition on 23rd August, 2022. On 21st
November, 2023, this Court passed the following order :
"2. After some arguments were canvassed by counsel
afore-noted, on the serious points emanating herein, at
the request of the Court, Mr. K.M. Nataraj, learned ASG
has very fairly submitted that he may be permitted to
obtain instructions, after full and effective consultation
with the authorities concerned insofar as checking
of incorrect assertions/misrepresentation for various
products with regard to their purported medicinal efficacy
is concerned, as also the measures which may be put
in place for statements released through the media,
both electronic and print, presently confined to the
Respondent No.5.
3. Mr. Poovayya, learned senior counsel for the
Respondent No.5, on instructions, assures this Court
that henceforth there shall not be any violation of any
law(s), especially relating to advertising or branding
of products manufactured and marketed by it and,
further, that no casual statements claiming medicinal
efficacy or against any system of medicine will be
released to the media in any form. The Respondent
No.5 is bound down to such assurance.
4. It is made clear that the suit(s) pending on issues
pertaining inter-se, that is, between the petitioners/other
persons and the Respondent No.5 have not been stayed,
and shall not be hindered only by reason of the pendency
of the present writ petition."
(emphasis added)
[2024] 8 S.C.R.
407
In Re: Patanjali Ayurved Ltd. Through Its Mangg. Dir., Acharya Balkrishna & Baba Ramdev
in The Matter of: Indian Medical Asso. and another v. Union of India and others
C.
PROCEEDINGS DATED 27TH FEBRUARY, 2024
4.
On 27th February, 2024, learned counsel appearing for IMA drew the
attention of this Court to some advertisements published by Patanjali
in a newspaper and the transcription of a Press Conference conducted
by Baba Ramdev and Acharya Balkrishna on 22nd November, 2023,
i.e., on the very next day to passing of the order by this Court on
21st November, 2023 and submitted that despite an assurance
given on behalf of Patanjali and recorded in the order passed on
21st November, 2023, the aforesaid parties were continuing to make
incorrect assertions and misrepresentations in respect of various
products marketed by them by describing the said products as a
permanent solution to particular ailments that have been specifically
listed in the Schedules appended to the Drugs and Magic Remedies
(Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 19544 and the Drugs and Magic
Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Rules, 1955.5
5.
In view of the above, this Court expressed a prima facie view that
Patanjali had violated the undertaking given to the Court on 21st
November, 2023 and issued a notice to show cause to Patanjali and
its Managing Director as to why contempt of court proceedings be
not issued against them. The relevant extract of the order passed
on 27th February, 2024, is as follows:
"3. Today, Mr. P.S. Patwalia, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the petitioners states that his briefing counsel
proposes to file some newspaper advertisements in the
daily newspaper "The Hindu" published on 04th December,
2023 (i.e. after the date of passing the order on 21st
November, 2023) and a You Tube link and transcription of
a Press Conference headed by Baba Ramdev and Acharya
Balkrishna (Managing Director of the respondent no.5)
conducted on 22nd November, 2023 (i.e. on the very next
day of the passing of the order on 21st November, 2023).
4. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the
aforesaid documents amply demonstrate that the
respondent no.5 is continuing to make incorrect assertions
4
For short 'DMR Act, 1954'
5
For short 'DMR Rules, 1955'
408
[2024] 8 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
and misrepresentations in respect of its various products in
the market by describing the said products as a permanent
solution to such of the ailments that have been specifically
listed in the Schedule appended to the Drugs and Magic
Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954 and
the Schedule appended to the Drugs and Magic Remedies
(Objectionable Advertisements) Rules, 1955.
5. We may note that Section 3(d) of the 1954 Act prohibits
advertisement of certain products for treatment of certain
diseases and disorders, including thereof diabetes
(Sr. No.9), Heart Diseases (Sr. No.26), High or Low Blood
Pressure (Sr. No. 27) and Obesity (Sr. No. 38) and Asthma
(Appended to the 1955 Rules at Sr. No.1).
6. The aforesaid advertisement as referred to by
learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners and those
that form part of the documents enclosed with an
anonymous letter dated 15th January, 2024, addressed
to Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India with copies
marked to two other Hon'ble Judges of this Court
including one of us (Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.) show
that the said advertisements were issued and Press
Conferences held after the order was passed on 21st
November, 2023. The aforesaid documents handed
over by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners
and the anonymous letter dated 15th January, 2024, are
taken on record. Copies thereof have been furnished
to learned counsel for the respondents.
7. Prima facie, this Court is of the opinion that the
respondent no.5-Patanjali Ayurved Limited has violated
the undertaking given by it and recorded in the order
dated 21st November, 2023.
8. Issue notice as to why Contempt of Court proceedings
should not be initiated against the respondent no.5
and its Managing Director-Acharya Balkrishna. Memo
of parties shall be drawn by the Registry.
9. Mr. Simranjeet Singh, learned Counsel appearing on
behalf of Mr. Gautam Talukdar, Advocate on Record,
[2024] 8 S.C.R.
409
In Re: Patanjali Ayurved Ltd. Through Its Mangg. Dir., Acharya Balkrishna & Baba Ramdev
in The Matter of: Indian Medical Asso. and another v. Union of India and others
accepts notice on behalf of the respondent no.5- Patanjali
Ayurved Limited and its Managing Director and seeks time
to file a reply.
10. Reply be filed within two weeks with a copy to learned
counsel for the petitioners and other respondents.
xxx xxx xxx
14. Till further orders, the respondent no.5-Patanjali
Ayurved Limited is restrained from advertising or
branding of products manufactured and marketed by
it which are meant to cure the diseases/disorders/
conditions specified in the 1954 Act and 1955 Rules.
Respondent no.5 and its officers are also cautioned to
refrain from making any statements against any system
of medicine in the media (both electronic and print)
in any form, as undertaken on 21st November, 2023."
(emphasis added)
D.
PROVISIONS OF DMR ACT AND DMR RULES
6.
For purposes of ready reference, the provisions of Sections 3 and
4 of the DMR Act, 1954 are extracted below :
"3. Prohibition of advertisement of certain drugs for
treatment of certain diseases and disorders.-Subject
to the provisions of this Act, no person shall take any part
in the publication of any advertisement referring to any
drug in terms which suggest or are calculated to lead to
the use of that drug for-
(a) the procurement of miscarriage in women or prevention
of conception in women; or
(b) the maintenance or improvement of the capacity of
human beings for sexual pleasure; or
(c) the correction of menstrual disorder in women; or
(d) the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment or
prevention of any disease, disorder or condition
specified in the Schedule, or any other disease, disorder
or condition (by whatsoever name called) which may
be specified in the rules made under this Act:
410
[2024] 8 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Provided that no such rule shall be made except-
(i) in respect of any disease, disorder or condition which
requires timely treatment in consultation with a registered
medical practitioner or for which there are normally no
accepted remedies; and
(ii) after consultation with the Drugs Technical Advisory
Board constituted under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act,
1940 (23 of 1940), and if the Central Government considers
necessary, with such other persons having special
knowledge or practical experience in respect of Ayurvedic or
Unani systems of medicines as that Government deems fit.]
4. Prohibition of misleading advertisements relating to
drugs.-Subject to the provisions of this Act, no person
shall take any part in the publication of any advertisement
relating to a drug if the advertisement contains any matters
which-
(a) directly or indirectly gives a false impression regarding
the true character of the drug; or
(b) makes a false claim for the drug; or (c) is otherwise
false or misleading in any material particular.
THE SCHEDULE
[See Sections 3(d) and 14]
S. No. Name of the disease, disorder or condition
*****
9. Diabetes.
******
26. Heart diseases.
27. High or low blood pressure.
*******
38. Obesity."
7.
Rule 6 of the DMR Rules, 1955 states as follows:
"[6] Prohibition of Advertisement of Drugs for Treatment
of Disease, etc.- No person shall also take part in the
[2024] 8 S.C.R.
411
In Re: Patanjali Ayurved Ltd. Through Its Mangg. Dir., Acharya Balkrishna & Baba Ramdev
in The Matter of: Indian Medical Asso. and another v. Union of India and others
publication of any advertisement referring to any drug in
terms which suggest or are calculated to lead to the use
of that drug for the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment or
prevention of any disease, disorder, or condition specified
in the Schedule annexed to these rules.
SCHEDULE
(See Rule 6)
1. Asthma
***]"
E.
ADVERTISEMENT PUBLISHED IN THE NEWSPAPER ON
4TH DECEMBER, 2023
8.
It is noteworthy that Patanjali had published an advertisement in
the daily newspaper on 4th December, 2023 (copy whereof was
subsequently filed by the petitioner/IMA under index dated 6th February,
2024), that spoke of "completely curing" lakhs of people of diseases
like high blood pressure, sugar, thyroid, arthritis, asthma, etc. Similarly,
the advertisement claimed to have "completely cure patient suffering
from failure of liver, kidney, heart and brain". The advertisement as
published by Patanjali on 4th December, 2023 with a photograph of
Baba Ramdev prominently displayed in it, is extracted below :
412
[2024] 8 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
9.
In the advertisement, Patanjali also displayed packages of medicines
sold by it under the names of "BP GRIT", "Madhu GRIT" and "Liva
Amrit Advance" and declared that they offer permanent solution for
curing ailments such as sugar, BP and liver problems.
F.
TRANSCRIPTION OF THE PRESS CONFERENCE
CONDUCTED ON 22nd NOVEMBER, 2023
10. We may also refer to the transcription of the statements made by
Baba Ramdev in a Press Conference conducted by Patanjali on 22nd
November, 2023, i.e., on the very next day to this Court passing the
order on 21st November, 2023, recording the undertaking given by
learned counsel for Patanjali that there shall be no violation of any
law relating to advertising or branding of products manufactured
and marketed by Patanjali and that no casual statements claiming
medicinal efficacy or against any system of medicine will be released
to the media in any form. In the said transcription, Baba Ramdev
alluded to the aforesaid order passed by this Court and asserted
that a group of doctors were making false propaganda claiming that
"there is cure for diseases like BP, sugar, thyroid, asthma, arthritis,
liver and kidney failure", that they have "discontinued insulin for more
than a crore people"; that "children with type-1 diabetes have been
cured" and that "we cure blood pressure, thyroid, type - 1 diabetes,
asthma and turn CRP positive to negative". Referring to the order
passed by this Court on 21st November, 2023, Acharya Balkrishna
made a statement in the very same Press Conference, that "Corona
could not be cured by allopathy......." and that "Coronil has not only
protected the family but also followed all protocols and rules".
G.
PROCEEDINGS DATED 19TH MARCH, 2024
11. In the light of the endorsement made by Baba Ramdev of the
advertisement issued by Patanjali that had given an Undertaking
to this Court on 21st November, 2023, the scope of the contempt
proceedings initiated by this Court on 27th February, 2024, was
expanded. On 19th March, 2024, notice to show cause was issued
to Baba Ramdev calling upon to him to state as to why contempt
proceedings should not be initiated against him as well for violation
of the provisions of Sections 3 and 4 of the DMR Act, 1954 and Rule
6 of the DMR Rules, 1955. Learned counsel appearing for Patanjali
and Acharya Balkrishna accepted notice on behalf of the proposed
[2024] 8 S.C.R.
413
In Re: Patanjali Ayurved Ltd. Through Its Mangg. Dir., Acharya Balkrishna & Baba Ramdev
in The Matter of: Indian Medical Asso. and another v. Union of India and others
contemnor, i.e., Baba Ramdev and sought time to file replies. The
relevant extract of the order passed on 19th March, 2024 is as follows :
"1. On the last date of hearing, notice to show cause was
issued to the respondent No.5 and its Managing DirectorAcharya Balkrishna (respondent No.6) as to why contempt
of court proceedings be not initiated against them for
violating the order dated 21st November, 2023. At the
request of learned counsel appearing for the aforesaid
respondent, a period of two weeks' was granted to file a
reply. The reply is not on record.
xxx xxx xxx
4. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances,
it is deemed appropriate to direct the presence of
respondent No.6-Acharya Balkrishna on the next
date of hearing. Further, having gone through the
advertisements issued by the respondent No.5 in
the teeth of the undertaking given to this Court on
21st November, 2023 and on noticing that the said
advertisements reflect an endorsement thereof by Baba
Ramdev, it is deemed appropriate to issue notice to
show cause as to why the contempt proceedings be
not initiated against him as this Court is prima facie
of the opinion that he too has violated the provisions
of Section 3 and 4 of the Drugs and Magic Remedies
(Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954 read with
Rule 6 of the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable
Advertisements) Rules, 1955.
5. Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, learned Senior counsel appearing
with Mr. Gautam Talukdar, learned Advocate on Record
accepts notice on behalf of the proposed Contemnor-Baba
Ramdev. Complete set of paper book be furnished to the
learned counsel within two days.
6. Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, learned Senior counsel appearing for
the respondent No.5 and its Managing Director-respondent
No.6 states on instructions that reply to show cause is
ready and the same shall be filed during the course of
the day. Copies thereof may be furnished to the learned
414
[2024] 8 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
counsel for the petitioner as also to the Union of India
and the same be filed by tomorrow, i.e. 20th March, 2024.
xxx xxx xxx
11. The respondent No.6-Acharya Balkrishna shall
remain present on the next date of hearing along with
the proposed contemnor-Baba Ramdev."
(emphasis added)
H.
AFFIDAVITS DATED 20TH MARCH, 2024 AND 6TH APRIL, 2024
12. On 20th March, 2024, Acharya Balkrishna filed an affidavit, purportedly
in compliance of the order passed by this Court on 27th February, 2024.
In the said affidavit, in one breath the deponent offered an unqualified
apology on behalf of Patanjali for the breach of the statement recorded
in para 3 of the order dated 21st November, 2023 and in the other
breath, tried to explain that the advertisement in question was meant
to contain only general statements but inadvertently, included the
offending statement and that the intention was only to exhort the
citizens of the country to lead the healthier life by consuming the
product of Patanjali. The contents of the aforesaid affidavit filed by
Acharya Balkrishna are extracted below :
"3. The Deponent regrets that the advertisement in question
which was meant to contain only general statements
inadvertently included the offending sentences. The same
was bona fide and added in routine course by the media
department of the Respondent No. 5 Company. The
personnel of the media department of the Respondent
No. 5 Company were not cognizant of the order dated
21.11.2023."
13. On perusing the aforesaid affidavit, this Court expressed its
disinclination to accept the conditional apology tendered. At that
stage, conscious of the fact that the aforesaid affidavit could not
be treated as an unqualified apology, time was sought to file fresh
affidavits. Thereafter, fresh affidavits were filed by Acharya Balkrishna
and Baba Ramdev on 6th April, 2024 wherein, identical averments
were made by them. The said affidavits stated that :
"2. I am filing this Affidavit in supersession of my Affidavit
dated 20.03.2024.
[2024] 8 S.C.R.
415
In Re: Patanjali Ayurved Ltd. Through Its Mangg. Dir., Acharya Balkrishna & Baba Ramdev
in The Matter of: Indian Medical Asso. and another v. Union of India and others
3. Pursuant to the order dated 27.02.2024, I entered
appearance through Ld. Counsel on 19.03.2024 before this
Hon'ble Court and tendered an unqualified apology for the
breach of the statement recorded in Para 3 of the order dated
21.11.2023. In the affidavit filed on 20.03.2024, I further
undertake to ensure that such offending advertisements
shall not be issued in the future. I affirm that no further
offending advertisements were issued after 27.02.2024.
4. I hereby tender an unconditional and unqualified
apology for the breach of the statement recorded in para
3 of the order of this Hon'ble Court dated 21.11.2023. I
further undertake and ensure that the said statement shall
be complied with in letter and spirit and no such similar
advertisements shall be issued.
5. I seek pardon for the aforesaid breach of the statement.
I undertake to always uphold the majesty of law and
majesty of justice.
6. That I sincerely regret the issue of advertisements from
Respondent No. 5 which is an infraction of the order dated
21.11.2023. I tender my unconditional and unqualified
apology in this regard, on my own behalf and that of
Respondent No. 5 I never had any intention to violate
orders of this Hon'ble Court. I state that no such lapse
will occur in future. I will always uphold the Majesty of law.
7. I hereby tender an unconditional and unqualified apology
for the press conference dated 22.11.2023 and undertake
not to make any public statements which may amount to
breach of the undertaking given as recorded in para 3 of
the order dated 21.11.2023, therefore, seek apology of
this Hon'ble Court for the aforesaid press Conference."
I.
PROCEEDINGS DATED 10TH APRIL, 2024
14. In an endeavour to avoid appearing before this Court in terms of the
directions issued on 19th March, 2024, both, Acharya Balkrishna and
Baba Ramdev moved separate applications6 for permission to appear
6
IA No. 78328 of 2024 and IA No. 77726 of 2024
416
[2024] 8 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
virtually on a plea that they had pre-scheduled meetings at Dubai,
UAE on 2nd April, 2024 and therefore, they needed exemption from
attending the Court hearing physically on 2nd April, 2024. Enclosed
with the said applications sworn on 30th March, 2024, were the details
of their travel summary issued at 2.16 PM, on 31st March, 2024.
15. On noticing the evident discrepancies in the aforesaid affidavits
and the documents enclosed therewith, it was pointed out that
while the travel summary enclosing the air tickets of the proposed
contemnors was dated 31st March, 2024, the affidavits filed by them
were sworn one day before the said date, i.e., on 30th March, 2024.
This Court adversely commented on the aforesaid mismatch of dates
and observed that it was an attempt on the part of the proposed
contemnors to somehow evade their physical appearance before the
Court. The relevant paras of the order passed on 10th April, 2024,
are extracted below :
"1. Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, learned Senior counsel appearing
for the respondents No. 5, 6 and 7, proposed contemnors,
submits that subsequent to filing affidavits dated 02nd April,
2024, submitting qualified apologies to this Court for issuing
misleading advertisements and releasing press statements
contrary to the orders passed on 21st November, 2023
and the undertakings given to this Court, the proposed
contemnors have filed fresh affidavits on 06th April, 2024,
tendering their unconditional apologies for the lapses on
their part and they have sought pardon for the breach of
statements made by them.
2. Having regard to the entire history of the matter
and the past conduct of the respondents No. 5
to 7 - proposed contemnors, we have expressed our
reservation about accepting the apologies offered in
the latest affidavits filed by them. We have also pointed
out to learned counsel appearing for the proposed
contemnors that even after notices to show cause were
issued to the respondents-proposed contemnors and
they were directed to remain present before this Court,
they attempted to wriggle out by moving applications
seeking exemption from appearing on the pretext
that they were travelling abroad. To demonstrate the
said fact, in the affidavits filed by them alongwith
[2024] 8 S.C.R.
417
In Re: Patanjali Ayurved Ltd. Through Its Mangg. Dir., Acharya Balkrishna & Baba Ramdev
in The Matter of: Indian Medical Asso. and another v. Union of India and others
the exemption applications on 30th March, 2024, they
annexed tickets purportedly purchased by their travel
agents for purposes of travelling abroad. Strangely
enough, the said documents were issued the day after
the aforesaid affidavits were sworn by them, i.e. on
31st March, 2024.
3. When confronted with the said position on the last
date of hearing, learned Senior counsel appearing for
the respondents No. 5 and 7 - proposed contemnors
had sought time to obtain clarifications. It has
now been stated in the latest affidavits filed by the
proposed-contemnors that admittedly, photocopies of
the tickets were issued on a date after the affidavits
were sworn and the said documents were annexed with
the affidavits that were sworn on 30th March, 2024 and
filed on 31st March, 2024. Fact remains that on the date
when the affidavits were sworn, there were no such
tickets issued. It is apparent that the respondents were
trying to escape appearing personally before this Court
in these proceedings, which is most unacceptable."
(emphasis added)
J.
PROCEEDINGS DATED 16TH APRIL, 2024
16. On 16th April, 2024, both the proposed contemnors were present in
Court and after interacting with them, the following order was passed:
"1. Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, learned Senior counsel appearing
for the proposed Contemnors No.5 to 7 submits that to
redeem themselves and demonstrate their bona fides,
they propose to take some steps unilaterally. He requests
one week's time to revert back on the aforesaid aspect.
2. This Court has interacted with the proposed
Contemnors No.6 and 7 for some time and have
heard their submissions. Both of them have tendered
their unqualified apology for having called a press
conference immediately after an order was passed by
this Court on 21st November, 2023 and for continuing
to issue misleading advertisements and making
derogatory statements in respect of other systems of
418
[2024] 8 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
treatment. They seek to assure this Court that they will
be careful in future and not violate the orders of the
Court or the undertaking given to the Court or violate
the provisions of law.
3. This aspect shall be considered on the next date.
4. At the request of the proposed Contemnors No.5 to
7, list on 23rd April, 2024 at the top of the Board. The
proposed contemnors shall remain present on the next
date of hearing."
(emphasis added)
17. This was followed by an affidavit filed by Acharya Balkrishna on 24th
April, 2024 stating inter alia as follows :
"2. That the Deponent herein in the affidavit filed on
06.04.2024, undertook to ensure that no further offending
advertisements shall be issued as directed by this Hon'ble
Court.
3. Further, I again tender my unconditional apology for
the infraction of order dated 21.11.2023, and I regret that
the advertisements were issued and I seek pardon of this
Hon'ble Court. I tender my unconditional and unqualified
apology in this regard once again.
4. I state that no such lapse will occur in future. I will
always uphold the Majesty of the Court of law.
5. Furthermore, pursuant to the order dated 16.04.2024,
the Deponent took an initiative to redeem himself voluntarily
and in view of the same, the Deponent to took an initiative
to publish public apologies in various National and Regional
Newspapers with wide circulation across the country
which were carried out on 22.04.2024. The said public
apology which was published in several newspapers
circulated across the nation is reproduced as below for
ready reference:
"Patanjali Ayurved Limited fully respects the
dignity of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. We
sincerely apologize for the mistake of publishing
[2024] 8 S.C.R.
419
In Re: Patanjali Ayurved Ltd. Through Its Mangg. Dir., Acharya Balkrishna & Baba Ramdev
in The Matter of: Indian Medical Asso. and another v. Union of India and others
advertisements and holding a press conference
even after our advocates made a statement in
the apex court. We are committed to not let
such a mistake be repeated ever in future. We
reassure you that we shall remain committed
to uphold the constitution and dignity of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court.
Patanjali Ayurved Limited
Haridwar, Uttarakhand."
K.
PROCEEDINGS DATED 23rd APRIL, 2024
18. On 23rd April, 2024, learned counsel appearing for the proposed
contemnors stated before this Court that some advertisements
tendering unqualified apologies by the proposed contemnors had
been published in the press a day before. When the newspaper
cuttings were handed over to the Court for perusal, it was noticed
that the apologies tendered were in a small box with such a fine
print that it was impossible to read the apologies without using a
magnifying glass. This attempt to downsize the advertisements,
making them virtually illegible, had drawn an adverse comment from
the Court. As time was sought to collate and file the documents and
issue additional advertisements, the following orders were passed
on 23rd April, 2024 :
"1. Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, learned Senior counsel appearing for
the proposed contemnors submits that some advertisements
tendering unqualified apologies have been published in the
press by the proposed contemnors for the lapses on their
part, only yesterday. It is submitted that the same have
been collated and shall be filed during the course of the
day with copies furnished to learned counsel for the parties.
2. Needful shall be done within two days.
3. It is further stated that additional advertisements shall
be published by the proposed contemnors tendering an
unqualified apology for the lapses on their part within this
week. As and when the said advertisements are issued and
copies filed, the same shall be considered and appropriate
orders passed.
420
[2024] 8 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
4. List on 30th April, 2024, at the top of the Board. The
proposed contemnors shall continue to remain present on
the next date of hearing."
19. On 24th April, 2024, an affidavit was filed by Acharya Balkrishna
furnishing a list of the daily newspapers published by the proposed
contemnors on 22nd April, 2024, both in English and in Hindi. He
further deposed that to redeem himself, he had voluntarily taken
the initiative to publish fresh advertisements seeking public apology
in various national and regional newspapers with wide circulation
which were carried on 24th April, 2024. The apologies published by
the proposed contemnors extracted in para 7 of the affidavit, stated
as follows:
"In the wake of on going matter before the Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India (Writ Petition C. No. 645/2022), we in our
individual capacity as well as on behalf of the Company,
unconditionally apologise for the non-compliance or
disobedience of directions/orders of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India.
We unconditionally extend the apology for holding meeting/
press conference dated 22.11.2023. We earnestly apologize
for the mistake made in publishing our advertisements and
it is our whole-hearted commitment that such errors will
not be repeated.