Supreme Court of India
IN RE: PATANJALI AYURVED LIMITED THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, ACHARYA BALKRISHNA AND BABA RAMDEV IN THE MATTER OF:INDIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION AND ANRversusUNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
- Citation
- 2024 INSC 605
- Decided
- 13 August 2024
- Disposal
- Disposed off
- Bench
- HIMA KOHLI
Holding
The Court held that the press conference and advertisements were a wilful breach of the undertaking, constituting civil contempt, but accepted the subsequent unconditional apologies and closed the contempt proceedings.
Summary
The Indian Medical Association filed a writ petition alleging that Patanjali Ayurved Ltd., its managing director Acharya Balkrishna and proponent Baba Ramdev, violated an undertaking given to the Supreme Court on 21 November 2023 by holding a press conference on 22 November 2023 and publishing advertisements that claimed cure for diseases prohibited under the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954. The Court examined whether these actions constituted wilful breach of the undertaking and thus civil contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. It held that the press conference and subsequent advertisements were clear violations of the undertaking and the statutory prohibitions, but accepted the unconditional, unqualified apologies tendered later and the steps taken to rectify the breach. The Court cautioned the respondents to strictly abide by future undertakings and discharged the contempt notices, closing the proceedings. The matter was disposed with the contempt proceedings closed.
Issues considered
- Whether the press conference and advertisements by Patanjali constitute wilful breach of the undertaking given to the Court.
- Whether the breach amounts to civil contempt under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
- Whether a qualified apology is sufficient to mitigate contempt, or an unconditional apology is required.
- Whether an undertaking given by counsel on behalf of a client has the same force as one given by the client.
Legislation cited
- Constitution of Indias. Article 129
- Contempt of Courts Act, 1971s. 12(1), s. 2(b)
- Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954s. 3(d), s. 4
- Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Rules, 1955s. Rule 6
Subjects
Contempt of CourtCivil contemptUndertakingWilful disobedienceQualified apologyUnconditional apologyDrugs and Magic Remedies ActMisleading advertisementsPress conferenceSupreme CourtArticle 129Section 2(b) Contempt Act
Judgment
[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 27 th 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 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 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. 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 30th 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 21st November, 2023 and submitted that the apologies
tendered by the proposed contemnors this time, were published in
bold letters and the font size was legible.
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 421
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
L. AFFIDAVIT DATED 16TH MAY, 2024
21. On 14th 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
16th 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
422 [2024] 8 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
9. Madhugrit
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
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 423
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
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.
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
424 [2024] 8 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
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:
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)
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 425
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
Combine Communications Private
13. Limited
14. Aastha Broad Casting Network Pvt. Ltd.
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.”
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, 19717 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
7 For short ‘the Act’
426 [2024] 8 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
its position before the Court. Such a party must not be left unheard
under any circumstances.
24. In the above context, we may profitably refer to the observations
made in Murray and Company v. Ashok Kr. Newatia and Another8
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
8 [2000] 1 SCR 367 : (2000) 2 SCC 367
9 [1979] 3 SCR 636 : (1979) 2 SCC 394
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 427
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 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)
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 Others11 this
Court added a note of caution in exercise of contempt jurisdiction
and made the following pertinent observations :
10 [1988] Supp. 3 SCR 212 : (1988) 4 SCC 592
11 [2002] 2 SCR 346 : (2002) 4 SCC 21
428 [2024] 8 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
“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 breach shall have to be established
beyond all reasonable doubt.”
14. Similar is the situation in Mrityunjoy Das v. Sayed
Hasibur Rahaman12 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
12 [2001] 2 SCR 471 : (2001) 3 SCC 739
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 429
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
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
13 [2014] 1 SCR 538 : (2014) 16 SCC 204
14 (2017) 7 SCC 1
430 [2024] 8 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
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 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-Emperor15
and Chairman, West Bengal Administrative Tribunal and Another
v. SK. Monobbor Hossain and Another16)
15 (1945) A.C. 264
16 (2012) 11 SCC 761
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 431
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
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 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
Others17).
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
17 [2008] 10 SCR 1169 : (2008) 14 SCC 561
18 [2006] 3 SCR 1068 : (2006) 11 SCC 114
432 [2024] 8 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
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)
33. Citing the decisions in Patel Rajnikant Dhulabhai (supra) and Rama
Narang (supra), this Court observed in Balwantbhai Somabhai
Bhandari v. Hiralal Somabhai19 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
19 [2023] 11 SCR 1064 : 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1139
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 433
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
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 Others20 as below :
“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
20 [1994] Supp. 3 SCR 720 : (1994) 6 SCC 332
434 [2024] 8 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
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)
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 435
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
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.
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
21 (2003) 11 SCC 1
436 [2024] 8 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
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.
xxx xxx xxx
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)
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
22 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1139
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 437
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
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 Another23 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……
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
23 [1979] 3 SCR 685 : (1980) 3 SCC 47
438 [2024] 8 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
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 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
24 (1992) Q.B. 270
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 439
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
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)
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
25 [1955] 1 SCR 757 : (1954) 2 SCC 444
26 [2012] 12 SCR 818 : (2013) 11 SCC 404
440 [2024] 8 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
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
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 441
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
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 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)
442 [2024] 8 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
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 remorse;
no regret; no repentance, or if it is only a device to
27 [2014] 6 SCR 545 : (2014) 7 SCC 280
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 443
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
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 Khot29]
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)
28 [1984] 3 SCR 833 : (1984) 3 SCC 405
29 (2006) 5 SCC 1
444 [2024] 8 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
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 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
30 [1995] Suppl. 1 SCR 283 : (1995) 4 SCC 1
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 445
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
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)
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
31 2018 SCC OnLine Del 11536
446 [2024] 8 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
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 proposed
contemnors, they have not advanced an argument to the effect that
the assurance recorded by this Court on 21st 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 21st 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
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 447
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
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 21st November, 2023. Despite that, accusatory statements were
made by them against practicing 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 21st 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
4th 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 this
Court had issued a notice to Patanjali on 27th 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 19th 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 20th
March 2024, though he purportedly tendered an unqualified apology
448 [2024] 8 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
on behalf of Patanjali for the breach of statement recorded in the
order dated 21st 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 6th 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 21st 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
future. Similarly, an unconditional and unqualified apology was offered
by the proposed contemnors for holding a Press Conference on 22nd
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 16th 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 22nd 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 24th April, 2024, stating inter
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 449
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
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 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 24th 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 14th 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 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.
450 [2024] 8 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
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.
Result of the case: Contempt proceedings closed.
†
Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Contempt of Court"Sign in to search