2024 INSC 605 REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

INHERENT JURISDICTION

SUO MOTU CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 4 OF 2024

IN

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 645 OF 2022

IN RE : PATANJALI AYURVED LIMITED THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,

ACHARYA BALKRISHNA AND BABA RAMDEV

IN THE MATTER OF :

INDIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION AND ANOTHER ……PETITIONERS

Versus

UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS …..RESPONDENTS

JUDGEMENT

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.

1 For short ‘Patanjali’

Page 1 of 41

A. BACKDROP

2.Indian Medication Association

2

, the petitioner in the writ petition

3

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 21

ST

NOVEMBER, 2023

3.Notice was issued on the writ petition on 23

rd

August, 2022. On 21

st

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.

2 In short “IMA”

3 Writ Petition (Civil) No. 645 of 2022

Page 2 of 41

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)

C. PROCEEDINGS DATED 27

TH

FEBRUARY, 2024

4.On 27

th

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 22

nd

November, 2023, i.e., on the very next day to passing of the order by

this Court on 21

st

November, 2023 and submitted that despite an assurance given on

behalf of Patanjali and recorded in the order passed on 21

st

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, 1954

4

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 21

st

November, 2023 and issued a notice

to show cause to Patanjali and its Managing Director as to why contempt of court

4 For short ‘DMR Act, 1954’

5 For short ‘DMR Rules, 1955’

Page 3 of 41

proceedings be not issued against them. The relevant extract of the order passed on 27

th

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 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, 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.

Page 4 of 41

xxx xxxxxx

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:

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—

Page 5 of 41

(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 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 4

TH

DECEMBER,

2023

8.It is noteworthy that Patanjali had published an advertisement in the daily

newspaper on 4

th

December, 2023 (copy whereof was subsequently filed by the

petitioner/IMA under index dated 6

th

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

Page 6 of 41

4

th

December, 2023 with a photograph of Baba Ramdev prominently displayed in it, is

extracted below :

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 22

nd

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 22

nd

November, 2023, i.e., on the very

next day to this Court passing the order on 21

st

November, 2023, recording the

Page 7 of 41

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 21

st

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 19

TH

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 21

st

November, 2023,

the scope of the contempt proceedings initiated by this Court on 27

th

February, 2024,

was expanded. On 19

th

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

Page 8 of 41

Acharya Balkrishna accepted notice on behalf of the proposed contemnor, i.e., Baba

Ramdev and sought time to file replies. The relevant extract of the order passed on 19

th

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 Director-Acharya 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 xxxxxx

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

counsel for the petitioner as also to the Union of India and the same be filed

by tomorrow, i.e. 20th March, 2024.

xxx xxxxxx

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)

Page 9 of 41

H.AFFIDAVITS DATED 20

TH

MARCH, 2024 AND 6

TH

APRIL, 2024

12.On 20

th

March, 2024, Acharya Balkrishna filed an affidavit, purportedly in

compliance of the order passed by this Court on 27

th

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 21

st

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 6

th

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.

Page 10 of 41

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 10

TH

APRIL, 2024

14.In an endeavour to avoid appearing before this Court in terms of the directions

issued on 19

th

March, 2024, both, Acharya Balkrishna and Baba Ramdev moved

separate applications

6

for permission to appear virtually on a plea that they had pre-

scheduled meetings at Dubai, UAE on 2

nd

April, 2024 and therefore, they needed

exemption from attending the Court hearing physically on 2

nd

April, 2024. Enclosed with

the said applications sworn on 30

th

March, 2024, were the details of their travel summary

issued at 2.16 PM, on 31

st

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

6 IA No. 78328 of 2024 and IA No. 77726 of 2024

Page 11 of 41

enclosing the air tickets of the proposed contemnors was dated 31

st

March, 2024, the

affidavits filed by them were sworn one day before the said date, i.e., on 30

th

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 10

th

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 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)

Page 12 of 41

J. PROCEEDINGS DATED 16

TH

APRIL, 2024

16. On 16

th

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 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 24

th

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.

Page 13 of 41

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 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 23

rd

APRIL, 2024

18.On 23

rd

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 23

rd

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.

Page 14 of 41

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.

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 24

th

April, 2024, an affidavit was filed by Acharya Balkrishna furnishing a list of

the daily newspapers published by the proposed contemnors on 22

nd

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 24

th

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. We undertake to abide by directions and instructions of the Hon’ble

Court with due care and utmost sincerity. We undertake to uphold the majesty of

the court and comply with applicable laws and directions of the Hon’ble Court of

law/relevant authorities.

Patanjali Ayurved Limited, Acharya Balkrishna, Swami Ramdev

Haridwar, Uttarakhand”

20.On 30

th

April, 2024, learned counsel for the proposed contemnors alluded to the

aforesaid affidavit sworn by his clients and to the publications carried in various

newspapers on 22

nd

April, 2024 containing their apologies for the breach of the order

passed by this Court on 21

st

November, 2023 and submitted that the apologies tendered

Page 15 of 41

by the proposed contemnors this time, were published in bold letters and the font size

was legible.

L. AFFIDAVIT DATED 16

TH

MAY, 2024

21.On 14

th

May, 2024, on a query posed by the Court, time was sought on behalf of

the proposed contemnors for permission to file affidavits setting out the steps that were

being taken by them to bring down the advertisements of those products of Patanjali,

licenses whereof had been suspended by the State of Uttarakhand and for recalling the

said medicines sent for sale to stockists and other agencies. The proposed contemnors

were permitted to file the said affidavits and orders on the suo motu contempt

proceedings were reserved. Following is the relevant extract of the affidavit filed by

Patanjali on 16

th

May, 2024 :

“2.That in pursuance of the order dated 10.04.2024 of this Hon’ble Court, the

State Government of Uttarakhand cancelled the manufacturing licenses of 14

ayurvedic medicines/formulations. The Respondent No. 5 is in the process of

taking the appropriate remedy against the aid suspension order, mentioned

hereinbelow, in terms of applicable law and further in light of the order dated

14.05.2024 passed by this Hon’ble Court.

3. That in light of the suspension order, the sale of these ayurvedic

medicines/formulations has been stopped by Respondent No. 5 by issuing

various directions to entities associated with it, details of which are mentioned

hereinafter. It is relevant to state that the list of 14 medicines/formulations

which has been suspended by the State Government of Uttarakhand are as

follows :

S. No. Medicines

1. Swasari Gold

2. Swasari Vati

3. Bronchom

4. Swasari Pravahi

5. Swasari Avaleh

6. Mukta Vati Extra Power,

7. Lipidom

8. BP Grit

9. Madhugrit

Page 16 of 41

10. Madhunashini Vati Extra Power

11. Livamrit Advance

12. Livogrit

13. Eyegrit Gold

14. Patanjali Drishti Eye Drop

4. That the sale of the aforesaid 14 ayurvedic medicines/formulations by

Respondent No. 5 on its online e-commerce platform patanjaliayurved.net was

stopped on 09.05.2024.

5. That deponent states that it has also taken steps to remove the advertisements

from its official verified social media accounts/handles in relation to the

aforesaid 14 ayurvedic medicines/formulations and is taking steps to ensure

that no advertisements qua the suspended medicines/formulations are

available on the same.

6. Further, the Respondent No. 5 was selling the aforementioned ayurvedic

medicines/formulations through-out India in its 5606 exclusive/franchise stores

and has issued email of withdrawal dated 14.05.2024 to all the exclusive

stores/franchises of the Respondent No. 5 across India for removal/withdrawal

of the 14 ayurvedic medicines/formulations which were suspended vide order

dated 15.04.2024 passed by the State Drug Licensing Authority Ayurvedic and

Unani Services, Dehradun, Uttarakhand.

I.The Respondent has instructed the media platforms, associated with it as

well as those specifically engaged by Respondent No. 5 for purchasing

advertisement slots in print and electronic media to immediately stop the

broadcasting of any advertisements in any form in relation to

aforementioned medicines/formulations. It is relevant to state herein that

vide emails dated 14.05.2024, issued by Respondent No. 5 to advertising

agency namely Vermillion Communication Private Limited, Rights Ad

Communication Private Limited, Rights Ad Communication Private

Limited, Combine Communications Private Limited as well as entities

such as Sanskar Info TV Private Limited, Aastha Broad Casting Network

Limited and Vedic Broadcasting Limited, necessary instructions have

been issued to ensure that no advertisements qua the sale or promotion

of the aforesaid 14 suspended ayurvedic medicines/formulations be

caried out in any publications either in print or electronic media.

A true copy of the emails dated 14.05.2024 sent to Vermillion

Communication Private Limited, Rights Ad Communication Private

Limited as well as entities such as Sanskar Info TV Private Limited,

Aastha Broad Casting Network Limited and Vedic Broadcasting Limited

are annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE R-1 at pages 10 to 21.

II.Respondent No. 5 also issued emails of withdrawal dated 14.05.2024 to

all franchise stores, Super Distributors & e-commerce partner (Fit India

Organic Private Limited) of the Respondent No. 5 across India for

removal/withdrawal of the aforesaid 14 suspended medicines.

Page 17 of 41

A true copy of the emails dated 14.05.2024 sent to franchise stores,

Super Distributors & e-commerce partner (Fit India Organic Private

Limited) are annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE R-2 at page

22 to 27.

III.Intimation emails dated 14.05.2024 were issued to social media

companies to remove/withdraw all advertisements of aforesaid 14

ayurvedic medicine/formulations, if any, suspended vide order dated

15.04.2024 passed by State Drug Licensing Authority Ayurvedic and

Unani Services, Dehradun, Uttarakhand, wherein such posts have been

issued by third party individuals/entities who are not associated with any

of the Respondent No. 5 verified social media handles. The said request

was made directly to the Social Media Intermediaries as Respondent No.

5 has not direct control on any such handle which belongs to third party

individuals/entities and any notice/take down action can only be initiated

by the Social media Intermediary themselves.

A true copy of the emails dated 14.05.2024 sent to social media

platforms/companies namely, X (Twitter), YouTube, Google and Meta

(Facebook & Instagram) are annexed herewith and marked as

ANNEXURE R-3 at pages 28-35.

Copies of the aforesaid emails dated 14.05.2024 written to various agencies,

media houses and social media platforms are tabulated hereinbelow for ready

reference of this Hon’ble Court:

7. Respondent No. 5 has further intimated/conveyed all its franchise and

stores to withdraw/remove any offending advertisement material.

8. The Respondent No. 5 further states that it has the highest regard for the

orders/directions passed by this Hon’ble Court and further it will comply with any

other directions/instructions as directed by this Hon’ble Court in order to meet the

compliance of orders passed by this Hon’ble Court.”

Page 18 of 41

S. No. Medicines

1. Patanjali (Exclusive/Franchise Stores

2. Patanjali Super Distributors

3. Sanskar Group

4. Vermillion Team

5. Fit India (E Commerce Partner)

6. Meta (Facebook)

7. Google LLC

8. Meta (Instagram)

9. Rights Ad communication Private Limited

10. X Corp (Twitter)

11. Vedic Broadcasting Limited

12. YouTube (Google LLC)

13. Combine Communications Private Limited

14. Aastha Broad Casting Network Pvt. Ltd.

M.ARTICLE 129 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND CONTEMPT OF

COURTS ACT, 1971

22.Before examining the conduct of the proposed contemnors in the aforesaid

background, we may note the relevant provisions of law. Article 129 of the Constitution

declares the Supreme Court to be “a court of record” and states that it shall have all the

powers of such a court including the power to punish for contempt of itself. The

provisions of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971

7

and the Rules framed thereunder form a

part of a special statutory jurisdiction that is vested in courts to punish an offending party

for its contemptuous conduct. It needs no emphasis that the power of contempt ought to

be exercised with caution, care and sparingly. The contemptuous act complained of must

be such that would result in obstruction of justice, adversely affect the majesty of law and

impact the dignity of the courts of law.

23.It must also be understood that contempt proceedings are sui generis inasmuch

as the Law of Evidence and the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 are strictly

inapplicable. At the same time, the procedure adopted during the contempt proceedings

must be fair and just that is to say that the principles governing the Rule of law must be

extended to the party against whom contempt proceedings have been initiated. The

party must have every opportunity to place its position before the Court. Such a party

must not be left unheard under any circumstances.

7 For short ‘the Act’

Page 19 of 41

24.In the above context, we may profitably refer to the observations made in Murray

and Company v. Ashok Kr. Newatia and Another

8

wherein, this Court stated as

follows:

“9………The purpose of contempt jurisdiction is to uphold the majesty and

dignity of the courts of law since the image of such a majesty in the minds of

the people cannot be led to be distorted. The respect and authority commanded

by courts of law are the greatest guarantee to an ordinary citizen and the entire

democratic fabric of the society will crumble down if the respect for the judiciary is

undermined. It is true that the judiciary will be judged by the people for what

the judiciary does, but in the event of any indulgence which can even

remotely be termed to affect the majesty of law, the society is bound to lose

confidence and faith in the judiciary and the law courts thus, would forfeit

the trust and confidence of the people in general.”

(emphasis added)

25.In Pushpaben and Another v. Narandas Badiani and Another

9

, this Court had

highlighted the significance of the special jurisdiction under the Act in the following

words:

“42. The contempt of court is a special jurisdiction to be exercised sparingly

and with caution whenever an act adversely affects the administration of

justice or which tends to impede its course or tends to shake public

confidence in the judicial institutions. This jurisdiction may also be exercised

when the act complained of adversely affects the majesty of law or dignity of the

courts. The purpose of contempt jurisdiction is to uphold the majesty and dignity of

the courts of law. It is an unusual type of jurisdiction combining “the jury, the

judge and the hangman” and it is so because the court is not adjudicating

upon any claim between litigating parties. This jurisdiction is not exercised to

protect the dignity of an individual judge but to protect the administration of

justice from being maligned. In the general interest of the community it is

imperative that the authority of courts should not be imperilled and there

should be no unjustifiable interference in the administration of justice. It is a

matter between the court and the contemner and third parties cannot intervene. It is

exercised in a summary manner in aid of the administration of justice, the

majesty of law and the dignity of the courts. No such act can be permitted

which may have the tendency to shake the public confidence in the fairness

and impartiality of the administration of justice.”

(emphasis added)

8 (2000) 2 SCC 367

9 (1979) 2 SCC 394

Page 20 of 41

26.In Reliance Petrochemicals Limited v. Proprietors of Indian Express

Newspapers, Bombay Pvt. Ltd. and Others

10

, this Court observed that :

35. The question of contempt must be judged in a particular situation. The

process of due course of administration of justice must remain

unimpaired. Public interest demands that there should be no

interference with judicial process and the effect of the judicial

decision should not be pre-empted or circumvented by public

agitation or publications. It has to be remembered that even at turbulent

times through which the developing countries are passing, contempt of

court means interference with the due administration of justice.

(emphasis added)

27.In Anil Ratan Sarkar and Others v. Hirak Ghosh and Others

11

this Court added

a note of caution in exercise of contempt jurisdiction and made the following pertinent

observations :

“13. Before proceeding with the matter further, certain basic statutory

features ought to be noticed at this juncture. The Contempt of Courts

Act, 1971 has been introduced in the statute-book for the purposes

of securing a feeling of confidence of the people in general and for

due and proper administration of justice in the country —

undoubtedly a powerful weapon in the hands of the law courts but

that by itself operates as a string of caution and unless thus

otherwise satisfied beyond doubt, it would neither be fair nor

reasonable for the law courts to exercise jurisdiction under the

statute. The observation as above finds support from a decision of this

Court in Chhotu Ram v. Urvashi Gulati [(2001) 7 SCC 530 : 2001 SCC

(L&S) 1196] wherein one of us (Banerjee, J.) stated as below: (SCC p.

532, para 2)

“2. As regards the burden and standard of proof, the

common legal phraseology ‘he who asserts must prove’

has its due application in the matter of proof of the

allegations said to be constituting the act of contempt.

As regards the ‘standard of proof’, be it noted that a

proceeding under the extraordinary jurisdiction of the

court in terms of the provisions of the Contempt of

Courts Act is quasi-criminal, and as such, the standard

of proof required is that of a criminal proceeding and the

10 (1988) 4 SCC 592

11 (2002) 4 SCC 21

Page 21 of 41

breach shall have to be established beyond all

reasonable doubt.”

14. Similar is the situation in Mrityunjoy Das v. Sayed Hasibur

Rahaman

12

and as such we need not dilate thereon further as to the

burden and standard of proof vis-à-vis the Contempt of Courts Act —

suffice it to record that powers under the Act should be exercised

with utmost care and caution and that too rather sparingly and in the

larger interest of the society and for proper administration of the

justice delivery system in the country. Exercise of power within the

meaning of the Act of 1971 shall thus be a rarity and that too in a matter

on which there exists no doubt as regards the initiation of the action being

bona fide.”

(emphasis added)

28.In Ram Kishan v. Tarun Bajaj and Others

13

, highlighting the significance of

contempt jurisdiction, it has been observed that :

“11. The contempt jurisdiction conferred on to the law courts power to punish an

offender for his wilful disobedience/contumacious conduct or obstruction to the

majesty of law, for the reason that respect and authority commanded by the courts

of law are the greatest guarantee to an ordinary citizen that his rights shall be

protected and the entire democratic fabric of the society will crumble down if the

respect of the judiciary is undermined. Undoubtedly, the contempt jurisdiction is

a powerful weapon in the hands of the courts of law but that by itself operates

as a string of caution and unless, thus, otherwise satisfied beyond

reasonable doubt, it would neither be fair nor reasonable for the law courts to

exercise jurisdiction under the Act. The proceedings are quasi-criminal in

nature, and therefore, standard of proof required in these proceedings is

beyond all reasonable doubt. It would rather be hazardous to impose sentence

for contempt on the authorities in exercise of the contempt jurisdiction on mere

probabilities.”

(emphasis added)

29.A judicious use of the power of contempt has been underscored in Hon’ble Shri

Justice C.S. Karnan, in Re

14

, where a Constitution Bench of 7 Judges cited several

decisions of foreign jurisdictions and observed thus :

“63. The authority to punish for contempt of court has always been exercised by

the judiciary from times immemorial [ In one of the earliest legal pronouncements

dealing with the subject, Justice Wilmot in R. v. Almon, 1765 Wilmot’s Notes

243 : 97 ER 94 explained the philosophy behind the power to punish for contempt

of court. The passage now a classis exposition runs as follows : (ER p. 100) “…

and whenever men’s allegiance to the laws is so fundamentally shaken, it is the

12 (2001) 3 SCC 739

13 (2014) 16 SCC 204

14 (2017) 7 SCC 1

Page 22 of 41

most fatal and most dangerous obstruction of justice, and, in my opinion, calls out

for a more rapid and immediate redress than any other obstruction whatsoever;

not for the sake of the Judges, as private individuals, but because they are the

channels by which the King’s justice is conveyed to the people.”} the justification

for the existence of that is not to afford protection to individual Judges [ “14. …

the law of contempt is not made for the protection of Judges who may be

sensitive to the winds of public opinion. Judges are supposed to be men of

fortitude, able to thrive in a hardy climate.” [Douglas, J., Craig v. Harney, 1947

SCC Online US SC 79, para 14 : 91 L.Ed. 1546 : 331 US 367 (1947) at p. 376]]

but to inspire confidence in the sanctity and efficacy of the judiciary [ “… The

object of the discipline enforced by the Court in case of contempt of court

is not to vindicate the dignity of the court or the person of the Judge, but to

prevent undue interference with the administration of justice.” [Bowen, L.J.

– Helmore v. Smith (2), [L.R.} 35 Ch. 449 at p. 455 (CA)]], though they do not

and should not flow from the power to punish for contempt. They should rest on

more surer foundations. The foundations are – the trust and confidence of the

people that the judiciary is fearless and impartial.”

(emphasis added

(Also refer: Parashuram Detaram Shamdasani v. King-Emperor

15

and Chairman,

West Bengal Administrative Tribunal and Another v. SK. Monobbor Hossain and

Another

16

)

N. MEANING OF THE EXPRESSION “WILFUL DISOBEDIENCE”

30.What does the expression “wilful disobedience” used in defining “civil contempt”

in Section 2(b) of the Act, mean? The expression “civil contempt” has been defined in

Section 2(b) as follows :

“civil contempt” means wilful disobedience to any judgment, decree,

direction, order, writ or other process of a court or wilful breach of an

undertaking given to a court”.

31.It can be discerned from the aforesaid definition that there are three sets of pre-

conditions for holding a person as guilty for committing civil contempt, i.e., (a) there must

a judgement, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a Court; (b) there must be

disobedience of such a judgement, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a

15 (1945) A.C. 264

16 (2012) 11 SCC 761

Page 23 of 41

Court; (c) such a disobedience to a judgement, decree, direction, order, writ or other

process of a Court must be wilful. The fourth is the circumstance where an undertaking

is given to the Court and there is a breach of such an undertaking. (Refer : Patel

Rajnikant Dhulabhai and Another v. Patel Chandrakant Dhulabhai and Others

17

).

32.In Rama Narang v. Ramesh Narang and Another

18

, this Court expounded on

the interpretation of Section 2(b) of the Act and observed that the said provision can be

divided into two neat compartments. The first compartment is of cases where there is

willful disobedience of a Court process and the second one is where there is willful

breach of an undertaking given to a Court. We may gainfully extract the following para

for ready reference :

“18. The Act has been duly widened. It provides inter alia for definitions of the

terms and lays down firmer bases for exercise of the court’s jurisdiction in

contempt. Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 defines civil

contempt as meaning “wilful disobedience to any judgment, decree,

direction, order, writ or other process of a court or wilful breach of an

undertaking given to a court”.

Analysed, the definition provides for two categories of cases, namely, (1) wilful

disobedience to a process of court, and (2) wilful breach of an undertaking given

to a court. As far as the first category is concerned, the word “any” further

indicates the wide nature of the power. No distinction is statutorily drawn

between an order passed after an adjudication and an order passed by consent.

This first category is separate from the second and cannot be treated as

forming part of or taking colour from the second category. The legislative

intention clearly was to distinguish between the two and create distinct

classes of contumacious behaviour. Interestingly, the courts in England have

held that the breach of a consent decree of specific performance by refusal to

execute the agreement is punishable by way of proceedings in contempt.”

(emphasis added)

17 (2008) 14 SCC 561

18 (2006) 11 SCC 114

Page 24 of 41

33.Citing the decisions in Patel Rajnikant Dhulabhai (supra) and Rama Narang

(supra), this Court observed in Balwantbhai Somabhai Bhandari v. Hiralal

Somabhai

19

that :

“62. Thus, it is evident that Section 2(b) of the Act, which defines civil contempt,

consists of two different parts and categories, namely, (i) wilful disobedience to

any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court or (ii)

wilful breach of an undertaking given to a court. The expression “any” used

with reference to the first category indicates the wide nature of power

given to the Court and that the statute does not draw a difference between

an order passed after adjudication or an order passed by consent. The first

part or category is distinct and cannot be treated as a part or taking colour

from the second category. This Court consciously observed that the Courts in

England have held that the breach of consent decree of performance by refusal

to execute an agreement was punishable by way of contempt proceedings. With

reference to the second part, in Rama Narang (supra) it was observed that

giving of an undertaking is distinct from a consent order recording compromise.

In the latter case of violation of compromise, no question of contempt arises, but

the party can enforce the order of compromise either by execution or injunction

from a Court. However, in the former case, when there is wilful disobedience,

contempt application and proceedings would be maintainable.”

(emphasis added)

34.In Balwantbhai Somabhai Bhandari (supra), the Court further observed as

under :

“73. An undertaking or an assurance given by a lawyer based upon which the

court decides upon a particular course of action would definitely fall within the

confines of “undertaking” as stipulated under Section 2(b) of the Act, 1971 and

the breach of which would constitute “civil contempt”. As held in M. v. Home

(supra) relied upon by this Court in Rama Narang (supra) that if a party or

solicitor or counsel on his behalf, so as to convey to the court a firm conviction

that an undertaking is being given, that party will be bound and it will be no

answer that he did not think that he was giving it or that he was misunderstood.

The breach of an undertaking given to a court by a person in a pending

proceeding on the faith of which the court sanctions a particular course of action

is misconduct amounting to contempt.”

(emphasis added)

35.The expression “willful disobedience” has been discussed by this Court at some

length in Niaz Mohammad and Others v. State of Haryana and Others

20

as below :

19 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1139

20 (1994) 6 SCC 332

Page 25 of 41

“9. Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the

Act’) defines “civil contempt” to mean “wilful disobedience to any judgment, decree,

direction, order, writ or other process of a court …”. Where the contempt consists in

failure to comply with or carry out an order of a court made in favour of a party, it is a

civil contempt. The person or persons in whose favour such order or direction has been

made can move the court for initiating proceeding for contempt against the alleged

contemner, with a view to enforce the right flowing from the order or direction in

question. But such a proceeding is not like an execution proceeding under Code of Civil

Procedure. The party in whose favour an order has been passed, is entitled to the

benefit of such order. The court while considering the issue as to whether the

alleged contemner should be punished for not having complied with and carried

out the direction of the court, has to take into consideration all facts and

circumstances of a particular case. That is why the framers of the Act while

defining civil contempt, have said that it must be wilful disobedience to any

judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court. Before a

contemner is punished for non-compliance of the direction of a court, the court

must not only be satisfied about the disobedience of any judgment, decree,

direction or writ but should also be satisfied that such disobedience was wilful

and intentional. The civil court while executing a decree against the judgment-debtor is

not concerned and bothered whether the disobedience to any judgment, or decree, was

wilful. Once a decree has been passed it is the duty of the court to execute the decree

whatever may be consequence thereof. But while examining the grievance of the

person who has invoked the jurisdiction of the court to initiate the proceeding for

contempt for disobedience of its order, before any such contemner is held guilty

and punished, the court has to record a finding that such disobedience was wilful

and intentional. If from the circumstances of a particular case, brought to the

notice of the court, the court is satisfied that although there has been a

disobedience but such disobedience is the result of some compelling

circumstances under which it was not possible for the contemner to comply with

the order, the court may not punish the alleged contemner.”

(emphasis added)

36.In Ashok Paper Kamgar Union v. Dharam Godha and Others

21

, this Court

observed that the expression “willful disobedience” deployed in Section 2(b) of the Act

means an act or omission done voluntarily and intentionally with a specific intent to do

something, which the law forbids or with a specific intention to fail to do something which

the law requires to be done. The 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.

21 (2003) 11 SCC 1

Page 26 of 41

Holding that a willful act does not encompass any involuntary or negligent actions, this

Court held in Ram Kishan (supra) as under :

“12. Thus, in order to punish a contemnor, it has to be established that disobedience

of the order is “wilful”. The word “wilful” introduces a mental element and

hence, requires looking into the mind of a person/contemnor by gauging his

actions, which is an indication of one’s state of mind. “Wilful” means

knowingly intentional, conscious, calculated and deliberate with full

knowledge of consequences flowing therefrom. It excludes casual, accidental,

bona fide or unintentional acts or genuine inability. Wilful acts does not

encompass involuntarily or negligent actions. The act has to be done with a “bad

purpose or without justifiable excuse or stubbornly, obstinately or perversely”. Wilful

act is to be distinguished from an act done carelessly, thoughtlessly, heedlessly or

inadvertently. It does not include any act done negligently or involuntarily. The

deliberate conduct of a person means that he knows what he is doing and

intends to do the same. Therefore, there has to be a calculated action with evil

motive on his part. Even if there is a disobedience of an order, but such

disobedience is the result of some compelling circumstances under which it

was not possible for the contemnor to comply with the order, the contemnor

cannot be punished. “Committal or sequestration will not be ordered unless

contempt involves a degree of default or misconduct.”

(emphasis added)

37.In a recent decision of this Court in Balwantbhai Somabhai Bhandari (supra)

22

,

in the above context, this Court has made the following relevant observations :

“45. The sanctity to judicial proceedings is paramount to a society governed

by law. Otherwise, the very edifice of democracy breaks and anarchy reigns. The

Act, 1971 is intended to correct a person deviating from the norm and trying to

breach the law/assuming law on to himself. It intends to secure confidence of the

people in the administration of justice by disciplining those erring in

disobeying the orders of the Court/undertaking given to court.

xxxxxxxxx

56. Hence, the expression or word “wilful” means act or omission which is

done voluntarily or intentionally and with the specific intent to do something

which the law forbids or with the specific intent to fail to do something the law

requires to be done, that is to say with bad purpose either to disobey or to

disregard the law. It signifies a deliberate action done with evil intent or with a bad

motive or purpose.”

(emphasis added)

22 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1139

Page 27 of 41

38.To determine as to whether a person is guilty of civil contempt, it is necessary to

first hold that the person has willfully disobeyed any judgement, decree, order, writ or

any other process of the Court. Of equal significance is a wilful breach of an undertaking

given to a Court. Mere disobedience of an order may not suffice to qualify as a “civil

contempt” within the meaning of Section 2(b) of the Act. The element of willingness is a

prerequisite to bring home the charge within the scope of the Act [Refer : Anil Ratan

Sarkar (supra)]. This must not be confused with a wilful breach of an undertaking given

to the opposite party in a litigation. While an undertaking given to a party in a litigation

whether by way of a settlement / agreement (oral or in writing) or an assurance, does not

attract the provisions of the Act, an undertaking given to a Court of law is treated on an

entirely different footing and a breach of the said undertaking would no doubt, attract the

provisions of the Act. It has to be seen in the facts and circumstances of a case as to

whether the undertaking is one offered to the Court or to the other side.

39. In Babu Ram Gupta v. Sudhir Bhasin and Another

23

this Court drew a

distinction between a party failing to honour an undertaking resulting in a fraud on the

Court as against failure to adhere to a consent order by a party and observed that:

“8. …..while it is the duty of the court to punish a person who tries to obstruct the

course of justice or bring into disrepute the institution of judiciary, this power has to

be exercised not casually or lightly but with great care and circumspection and only

in such cases where it is necessary to punish the contemner in order to uphold the

majesty of law and dignity of the courts.

9 …..Contempt proceeding against a person who has failed to comply with the

Court a order serves a dual purpose: (1) vindication of the public interest by

punishment of contemptuous conduct and (2) coercion to compel the contemner to

do what the law requires of him……

23 (1980) 3 SCC 47

Page 28 of 41

10. .…the reason why a breach of clear undertaking given to the court

amounts to contempt of court is that the contemner by making a false

representation to the court obtains a benefit for himself and if he fails to

honour the undertaking, he plays a serious fraud on the court itself and

thereby obstructs the course of justice and brings into disrepute the judicial

institution. The same cannot, however, be said of a consent order or a

compromise decree where the fraud, if any, is practised by the person

concerned not on the court but on one of the parties. Thus, the offence

committed by the person concerned is qua the party not qua the court, and,

therefore, the very foundation for proceeding for contempt of court is completely

absent in such cases…...

(emphasis added)

O. BREACH OF AN UNDERTAKING

40.Coming next to the word “undertaking”, the same has not been defined in the Act

but it has different connotations. In the backdrop of contempt proceedings, the word

“undertaking” has been defined in Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition as :

“A promise, engagement, or stipulation. An engagement by one of the parties to a

contract to the other, as distinguished from the nutual engagement of the parties to

each other. It does not necessarily imply a consideration. In a somewhat special

sense, a promise given in the course of legal proceedings by a party or his counsel,

generally as a condition to obtaining some concession from the court or the opposite

party. A promise or security in any form.”

41.The Osborn’s Concise Law Dictionary, 10

th

Edition defines “undertaking” in the

following words :

“A person, especially a promise in the course of legal proceedings by a party or

his counsel, which may be enforced by attachment or otherwise in the same

manner as an injunction.”

42.In M v. Home Office

24

, the Court issued a caution on how an undertaking would

be treated and observed that :

“If a party, or solicitors or counsel on his behalf, so act as to convey to the court

the firm conviction that an undertaking is being given, that party will be bound

24 (1992) Q.B. 270

Page 29 of 41

and it will be no answer that he did not think that he was giving it or that he was

misunderstood.”

P.QUALIFIED APOLOGY VIS-À-VIS UNCONDITIONAL APOLOGY

43.We may next touch upon the aspect of a qualified apology vis-à-vis an

unconditional apology. It must be understood that 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. Tendering a qualified apology is akin to a game of dice. It could

either have a positive outcome or a negative result. If the contemnor tenders a

conditional apology and expects luck to play a role in the outcome of such an apology,

then he should be ready to face the consequence of an outright rejection.

44.In M.Y. Shareef and Another v. Hon'ble Judges of the High Court of Nagpur

and Others

25

, a Constitution Bench of this Court had observed in para 12 that:

“12. The proposition is well settled and self-evident that there cannot be

both justification and an apology. The two things are incompatible. Again,

an apology is not a weapon of defence to purge the guilty of their offence;

nor is it intended to operate as a universal panacea, but it is intended to be

evidence of real contriteness. The appellants having tendered an unqualified

apology, no exception can be taken to the decision of the High Court that the

application for transfer did constitute contempt because the Judges were

scandalised with a view to diverting the due course of justice, and that in signing

this application the two advocates were guilty of contempt. That decision

therefore stands.”

(emphasis added)

25 (1954) 2 SCC 444

Page 30 of 41

45.In Priya Gupta and Another v. Additional Secretary, Ministry of Health and

Family Welfare and Others

26

, this Cout expounded on the expression “bona fide” and held

as below:

“7. Tendering an apology is not a satisfactory way of resolving contempt

proceedings. An apology tendered at the very initial stage of the

proceedings being bona fide and preferably unconditional would normally

persuade the court to accept such apology, if this would not leave a

serious scar on the dignity/authority of the court and interfere with the

administration of justice under the orders of the Court.

8. “Bona fide” is an expression which has to be examined in the context of

a given case. It cannot be understood in the abstract. The attendant

circumstances, behaviour of the contemnor and the remorse or regret on

his part are some of the relevant considerations which would weigh with

the Court in deciding such an issue. Where, persistently, a person has

attempted to overreach the process of Court and has persisted with the illegal

act done in wilful violation to the orders of the Court, it will be difficult for the

Court to accept unconditional apology even if it is made at the threshold of the

proceedings. It is not necessary for us to examine in any greater detail the

factual matrix of the case since the disobedience, manipulation of procedure and

violation of the schedule prescribed under the orders of the Court is an admitted

position. All that we have to examine is whether the apology tendered is bona

fide when examined in the light of the attendant circumstances and whether it will

be in the interest of justice to accept the same.

9. The facts which will weigh with the Court while considering acceptance

of an apology are the contemptuous conduct, the extent to which the order

of the Court has been violated, irresponsible acts on the part of the

contemnor and the degree of interference in the administration of justice,

which thereby cause prejudice to other parties. An apology tendered, even at

the outset, has to be bona fide and should be demonstrative of repentance and

sincere regret on the part of the contemnor, lest the administration of justice be

crudely interfered with by a person with impunity. The basic ingredients of the

rule of law have to be enforced, whatever be the consequence and all persons

are under a fundamental duty to maintain the rule of law. An apology which is

not bona fide and has been tendered to truncate the process of law with

the ulterior motive of escaping the consequences of such flagrant violation

of orders of the court and causes discernible disrespect to the course of

administration of justice, cannot be permitted. The court has to draw a

balance between cases where tendering of an apology is sufficient, and

cases where it is necessary to inflict punishment on the contemnor. An

attempt to circumvent the orders of the court is derogatory to the very dignity of

the court and administration of justice. A person who attempts to salvage himself

by showing ignorance of the court's order, of which he quite clearly had the

knowledge, would again be an attempt on his part to circumvent the process of

law. Tendering a justification would be inconsistent with the concept of an

apology. An apology which is neither sincere nor satisfactory and is not

made at the appropriate stage may not provide sufficient grounds to the

court for the acceptance of the same. It is also an accepted principle that one

26 (2013) 11 SCC 404

Page 31 of 41

who commits intentional violations must also be aware of the consequences of

the same. One who tenders an unqualified apology would normally not

render justification for the contemptuous conduct. In any case, tendering of

an apology is a weapon of defence to purge the guilt of offence by the

contemnor. It is not intended to operate as a universal panacea to frustrate the

action in law, as the fundamental principle is that rule of law and dignity of the

court must prevail.

xxx xxx xxx

14. From the above principle, it is clear that consideration of an apology as

contemplated under Explanation to Section 12(1) of the Act is not a panacea to

avoid action in law universally. While considering the apology and its

acceptance, the court inter alia considers : (a) the conduct of the

contemnor prior and subsequent to the tendering of apology. If the

conduct is contemptuous, prejudicial and has harmed the system and

other innocent persons as a whole, it would be a factor which would weigh

against the contemnors; and (b) the stage and time when such apology is

tendered.”

(emphasis added)

46.In Bal Kishan Giri v. State of Uttar Pradesh

27

, where examining a case of rejection

of an apology offered to the High Court by the contemnors who had insinuated bias and a

predetermined mind against three Judges of the High Court, this Court observed that :

“15. The appellant has tendered an absolute and unconditional apology which

has not been accepted by the High Court. The apology means a regretful

acknowledgment or an excuse for failure. An explanation offered to a person

affected by one's action that no offence was intended, coupled with the

expression of regret for any that may have been given. Apology should be

unquestionable in sincerity. It should be tempered with a sense of genuine

remorse and repentance, and not a calculated strategy to avoid

punishment.

16. Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act and the Explanation attached

thereto enables the court to remit the punishment awarded for committing the

contempt of court on an apology being made to the satisfaction of the court.

However, an apology should not be rejected merely on the ground that it is

qualified or tendered at a belated stage if the accused makes it bona fide. A

conduct which abuses and makes a mockery of the judicial process of the

court is to be dealt with iron hands and no person can tinker with it to

prevent, prejudice, obstruct or interfere with the administration of justice.

There can be cases where the wisdom of rendering an apology dawns upon only

at a later stage. Undoubtedly, an apology cannot be a defence, a justification, or

an appropriate punishment for an act which tantamounts to contempt of court. An

apology can be accepted in case where the conduct for which the apology is

given is such that it can be “ignored without compromising the dignity of the

court”, or it is intended to be the evidence of real contrition. It should be

sincere. Apology cannot be accepted in case it is hollow; there is no

27 (2014) 7 SCC 280

Page 32 of 41

remorse; no regret; no repentance, or if it is only a device to escape the

rigour of the law. Such an apology can merely be termed as “paper

apology”.

17. In L.D. Jaikwal v. State of U.P.

28

, this Court noted that it cannot subscribe to

the “slap-say sorry-and forget” school of thought in administration of contempt

jurisprudence. Saying “sorry” does not make the slapper poorer. [See also T.N.

Godavarman Thirumulpad vs. Ashok Khot

29

] So an apology should not be

“paper apology” and expression of sorrow should come from the heart and

not from the pen; for it is one thing to “say” sorry, it is another to “feel”

sorry.

18. An apology for criminal contempt of court must be offered at the earliest

since a belated apology hardly shows the “contrition which is the essence of the

purging of contempt”. Of course, an apology must be offered and that too clearly

and at the earliest opportunity. However, even if the apology is not belated but

the court finds it to be without real contrition and remorse, and finds that it was

merely tendered as a weapon of defence, the court may refuse to accept it. If the

apology is offered at the time when the contemnor finds that the court is going to

impose punishment, it ceases to be an apology and becomes an act of a cringing

coward.

19. This Court has clearly laid down that an apology tendered is not to be

accepted as a matter of course and the court is not bound to accept the

same. The court is competent to reject the apology and impose the

punishment recording reasons for the same. The use of insulting language

(sic and later on tendering an apology) does not absolve the contemnor on any

count whatsoever. If the words are calculated and clearly intended to cause any

insult, an apology, if tendered and lack penitence, regret or contrition, does not

deserve to be accepted.”

(emphasis added)

47.In T.M.A. Pai Foundation and Others v. State of Karnataka and Others

30

, on

noticing that the orders passed by this Court were assigned a distorted interpretation by

judicial officers, who subsequently tendered an unqualified apology for their conduct, the

said apologies were firmly rejected with the following observations :

“10. All the five officers, viz., Shri Arvind Choudhari, Capt. Shaikh, Smt

Joyce Sankaran, Shri P.S. Mane and Shri B.G. More, have no doubt

tendered unqualified apology to this Court but in the facts and

circumstances stated above, it would be a travesty of justice to accept the

same. They are senior and experienced officers and must be presumed to know

that under the constitutional scheme obtaining in this country, orders of this Court

have to be obeyed implicitly and that orders of the Apex Court — for that matter,

any Court — should not be trifled with. We have found hereinabove that they

have acted deliberately to subvert the orders of this Court, evidently at the

instance of the Association of Private Medical Colleges. It is equally

28 (1984) 3 SCC 405

29 (2006) 5 SCC 1

30 (1995) 4 SCC 1

Page 33 of 41

necessary to erase an impression which appears to be gaining ground that

the ‘mantra’ of unconditional apology is a complete answer to violations

and infractions of the orders of this Court.

11. Accordingly, we reject the “unconditional apology” tendered by the five

officers, hold them guilty of contempt of court and do hereby censure their

conduct. A copy of this order shall form part of the Annual Confidential

Reports/Record of Service of each of the said officers.”

(emphasis added)

48.In Balwantbhai Somabhai Bhandari (supra), where the contemnors sold the

suit property in violation of an undertaking given to the court, this Court rejected the

apologies tendered holding that the same should not be accepted as a matter of course

and the Court is not bound to accept the same. If the conduct of a contemnor is serious

and the said conduct has caused damage to the dignity of the institution, the same

should not be accepted. The Court deprecated the tendency of courts to show

compassion in the face of disobedience of an undertaking or an order of the Court done

deliberately.

49.In Suman Chadha and Another v. Central Bank of India

31

, the Court noted that

an undertaking given by a party must be contextualized and observed as follows :

“25. It is true that an undertaking given by a party should be seen in the

context in which it was made and (i) the benefits that accrued to the

undertaking party; and (ii) the detriment/injury suffered by the counter

party. It is also true that normally the question whether a party is guilty of

contempt is to be seen in the specific context of the disobedience and the

wilful nature of the same and not on the basis of the conduct subsequent

thereto. While it is open to the court to see whether the subsequent conduct of

the alleged contemnor would tantamount to an aggravation of the contempt

already committed, the very determination of an act of contempt cannot simply

be based upon the subsequent conduct.

26. But the subsequent conduct of the party may throw light upon one important

aspect namely whether it was just the inability of the party to honour the

commitment or it was part of a larger design to hoodwink the court.”

(emphasis added)

31 2018 SCC OnLine Del 11536

Page 34 of 41

50.A party appearing before the Court can give an undertaking by filing an

application or an affidavit clearly setting out the undertaking given to the Court or by

giving a clear and express oral undertaking incorporated by Court in its order. An

undertaking may also be given by an Advocate on behalf of a client and if duly and

properly given, it has the same effect as one given by the client. 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. 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. When an undertaking is given before the Court for any purpose, be it for payment

of money or for vacating a property or for doing an act or for refraining from doing a

particular act and compliances are not made, contempt proceedings can be drawn up.

The bottom-line is that 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.

Q.DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

51.Based on the aforesaid broad features of the law as laid down, we shall analyze

the action of the proposed contemnors for the purpose of deciding their action to be

wilful and contumacious. On the factual score, to the credit of learned counsel for the

Page 35 of 41

proposed contemnors, they have not advanced an argument to the effect that the

assurance recorded by this Court on 21

st

November, 2023, on a statement made by the

learned counsel appearing on behalf of Patanjali, cannot be treated as an undertaking

given to the Court or that it does not bind them. As a recall, on the aforesaid date,

learned Senior Advocate appearing for Patanjali had made a statement on instructions

and assured this Court that in future, there shall not be any violation of the law,

especially the laws relating to advertising or branding of products manufactured and

marketed by Patanjali. Further, an assurance was given to the Court that no casual

statements claiming medicinal efficacy of the products of Patanjali or against any

system of medicine will be released to the media in any form. Not only was the

aforesaid statement made a part of the order dated 21

st

November, 2023, this Court had

bound Patanjali down to the terms of the undertaking.

52.In the teeth of the aforesaid 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 had been 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 November 2023. The fact that the

proposed contemnors were aware of the undertaking given to this Court on their behalf

by their counsel is evident from their statements made in the Press Conference where

they acknowledged that an order had been passed by this Court on 21

st

November,

2023. Despite that, accusatory statements were made by them against practicing

Page 36 of 41

Doctors to the effect that they were spreading false propaganda that “there is no cure

for deceases like B.P., thyroid, sugar, asthma, arthritis, kidney and liver failure”.

53.Furthermore, the proposed contemnors being well aware of the statement

recorded on their behalf on 21

st

November, 2023 to the effect that Patanjali shall not

violate any laws, especially laws relating to advertising or branding of products

manufactured and marketed by it, 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. This statement 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.

54.Within a week of the order passed by this Court, the proposed contemnors

published advertisements in the daily newspapers on 4

th

December, 2023, 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 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 that has been extracted in para 8 of this order, is clearly a violation of the

undertaking given by the proposed contemnors. It was in the aforesaid background that

Page 37 of 41

this Court had issued a notice to Patanjali on 27

th

February, 2024 calling upon it to

explain as to why Contempt of Court proceedings should not be initiated against it and

its Managing Director – Acharya Balkrishna. Subsequently, on 19

th

March, 2024, a

similar notice was issued to Baba Ramdev noting that he too had violated the

provisions of law.

55.Coming to the first affidavit filed by Acharya Balkrishna, on 20

th

March 2024,

though he purportedly tendered an unqualified apology on behalf of Patanjali for the

breach of statement recorded in the order dated 21

st

November, 2023, we had rejected

the said affidavit for the reason that the deponent had tried to justify his conduct by

seeking to offer an explanation for the advertisements issued, which is impermissible.

As already observed by this Court, there cannot be a justification and an apology. The

two things are incompatible and do not go hand-in-hand. As a result, the conditional

apology tendered by the proposed contemnor was rejected.

56.Thereafter, fresh affidavits were filed by Acharya Balkrishna and Baba Ramdev

on 6

th

April, 2024 wherein, an unconditional and unqualified apology was tendered by

them for the breach of the statement recorded in para 3 of the order dated 21

st

November 2023. A further undertaking was given by them that they will ensure that the

statement recorded on their behalf is complied with and that no offending advertisement

will be issued in the future. Expressing regret for having issued advertisements in

violation of the undertaking given to this Court, they tendered an unconditional and

unqualified apology and again, gave an assurance that no such lapse shall occur in the

Page 38 of 41

future. Similarly, an unconditional and unqualified apology was offered by the proposed

contemnors for holding a Press Conference on 22

nd

November, 2023 and making

casual public statements regarding the efficacy of particular medicines manufactured by

them and against any system of medicine. They also undertook not to make any such

public statements in breach of the undertaking given to this Court.

57. On 16

th

April 2024, Acharya Balkrishna and Baba Ramdev, who were directed to

remain present in Court in terms of earlier orders, stepped forward and orally tendered

their unqualified apology to this Court for having called a Press Conference on 22

nd

November, 2023 and for having continued to issue misleading advertisements and

making derogatory statements in respect of other systems of treatment. They assured

this Court that they would be more careful in future and not violate any orders of the

Court or the undertaking given to this Court or violate any provisions of law.

58.Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the proposed contemnors had also

stated that to redeem themselves and demonstrate their bona fides, they proposed to

take some steps on their own. The said steps included tendering a public apology in

the press for which Acharya Balkrishna filed an affidavit on 24

th

April, 2024, stating inter

alia that an initiative had been taken to publish the public apology in various National

and Regional newspapers having wide circulation across the country.

59.However, when the said advertisements were handed over for the perusal of the

Court, the purported public apologies were rejected as meaningless and a mere lip

service. This was for the reason that the public apologies were published in the

Page 39 of 41

newspapers in such a fine print that the same were virtually illegible. This Court opined

that the said apology was more of an empty formality than an expression of genuine

contrition. Readily conceding the aforesaid position, learned Senior Advocate

appearing for the proposed contemnors had sought time to file copies of fresh

advertisements incorporating the public apology. This was done on an affidavit filed by

Acharya Balkrishna on 24

th

April, 2024. This time, the public apology carried in various

National and Regional newspapers was not only in bold words, but also published at

prominent places. Subsequently, Acharya Balkrishna filed an affidavit on 14

th

May,

2024, listing the steps that were being taken to bring down the advertisements of such

of the products manufactured by Patanjali whose licenses had been suspended by the

State of Uttarakhand and for recalling the said medicines from other agencies as also

from the online e-commerce platform of Patanjali.

R.CONCLUSION

60.On an overall conspectus of the facts of the present case and the sequence of

events that have transpired from November, 2023 till May, 2024, we are of the opinion

that 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 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 the apology tendered by them through advertisements published prominently

Page 40 of 41

in the National and Regional newspapers. No doubt the wisdom of tendering an

unconditional apology dawned belatedly on the proposed contemnors, after this Court

rejected the first attempt made by them to offer a qualified apology, but their subsequent

conduct demonstrates that they have made sincere efforts to purge themselves.

61.Given the attendant facts and circumstances of the case and the effort made by

the proposed contemnors to absolve themselves of acts that amounted to breach of

undertakings given to this Court, we are inclined to accept the apology tendered by

them and close the matter. At the same time, they are cautioned to strictly abide by the

terms of their undertakings. Any future intransigence on their part, whether by act,

deed or speech that could tantamount to violating the orders of the Court or

dishonouring the terms of the undertakings, shall be viewed strictly and the ensuing

consequences could indeed be grave. In that eventuality, the sword of contempt that

has now been returned to rest in its sheath, shall be flourished as swiftly as these

proceedings were originally initiated.

62.With the aforesaid orders, the present proceedings are closed and the notice to

show cause issued to the proposed contemnors is discharged.

…………………………………… J

[HIMA KOHLI]

..…………………………………… J

[AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH]

NEW DELHI

AUGUST 13, 2024

Page 41 of 41