Supreme Court: In a writ petition filed by the Indian Medical Association (‘IMA’) against Patanjali, its Managing Director — Acharya Balkrishna and its primary proponent, Baba Ramdev stating that they have been indulging in a campaign of misinformation and disparagement against the modern system of medicine in an orchestrated and systematic manner resulting in misleading the common man, the division bench of Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, JJ. While closing the contempt proceedings opined that though the initial conduct of the 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, efforts have been made by them to take steps to make amends
Background:
On 27-02-2024, IMA drew the attention of the Court to some advertisements published by Patanjali in a newspaper and the transcription of a Press Conference conducted by Baba Ramdev and Acharya Balkrishna on 22-11-2023, i.e., on the very next day to passing of the order by this Court on 21-11-2023 and submitted that despite an assurance given on behalf of Patanjali and recorded in the order , the aforesaid parties were continuing to make incorrect assertions and misrepresentations in respect of various products marketed by them by describing the said products as a permanent solution to particular ailments that have been specifically listed in the Schedules appended to the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954 (‘DMR Act’) and the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Rules, 1955.
Thus, the Court expressed a prima facie view that Patanjali had violated the undertaking given to the Court on 21-11-2023 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.
Baba Ramdev and Acharya Balkrishna, the founders of Patanjali, the Ayurved company had sought pardon from the Court for the breach. Baba Ramdev had also apologised for his November 2023 press conference. They had also published apologies in newspapers.
In the earlier order dated 07-05-2024, the Court said it wishes to examine objectionable advertisements by other consumer goods suppliers and unethical practices reported in modern medicine. Concerning misleading ads, the Court also issued directions.
Analysis and Decision:
The Court took note of Sections 3 and 4 of the DMR Act, 1954, and the advertisement in the daily newspaper on 4-12-2023, 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 Court took note of the order dated 23-04-2024, wherein after perusing the newspaper cuttings of the public apology, it was noticed that the apologies tendered by the contemnors were in a small box with such a fine print that it was impossible to read the apologies without using a magnifying glass. Thereafter, the apologies were published in bold letters and the font size was legible.
The Court took note of Article 129 of the Constitution and Contempt of Courts Act, 1973 (‘Act’)
The Court interpreted the expression “wilful disobedience” used in defining “civil contempt” in Section 2(b) of the Act, and the word “undertaking”, has not been defined in the Act.
The Bench further touched upon the aspect of qualified apology vis-à-vis an unconditional apology, and said 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.
The Court noted that 21-11-2023 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.
The Court said that the fact that the contemnors were aware of the undertaking given, as it is evident from their statements made in the Press Conference where they acknowledged that an order had been passed by this Court on 21-11-2023. 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”.
The Court opined that “though the initial conduct of the 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.”
The Court remarked that no doubt, that the wisdom of tendering an unconditional apology dawned belatedly on the contemnors, after the Court rejected their first attempt to offer a qualified apology, but their subsequent conduct demonstrates that they have made sincere efforts to purge themselves.
Thus, the Court accepted the apology tendered by the contemnors and closed the matter. The Court also cautioned them to strictly abide by the terms of their undertakings.
The Court clarified that any future intransigence on the contemnors part, whether by act, deed or speech that could be tantamount to violating the orders of the Court or dishonouring the terms of the undertakings, will be viewed strictly and the ensuing consequences could indeed be grave.
Thus, the Court closed the present proceedings and discharged the show cause notice issued to the contemnors.
Also read:
Supreme Court imposes temporary ban on Patanjali ads for medicinal products; issues contempt notice
CASE DETAILS
|
Citation: Appellants : Respondents : |
Advocates who appeared in this case For Petitioners: For Respondents: |
CORAM :
Buy Constitution of India HERE
