In Re: Patanjali Ayurved Limited through Its Managing Director, Acharya Balkrishna and Baba Ramdev in the Matter Of:indian Medical Association and Anr. vs Union of India and Others

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:

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]