Advertisements) Rules, 1955- Rule 6, and Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

Facts of the case

The contempt case arose out of a petition filed by the Indian Medical Association against Patanjali's advertisements attacking allopathy and making claims about curing certain diseases. On the top Court's reprimand, Patanjali had assured in November 2023 that it would refrain from such advertisements. Noting that the misleading advertisements continued, the Court issued a contempt notice to Patanjali and its MD in February. Later, the personal appearance of Acharya Balkrishna as well as Baba Ramdev, who featured in the press conferences and advertisements published after the undertaking, was ordered by the Court.

Issues

Whether the Conduct of the proposed contemnors was in wilful breach of the undertaking given to the Court and contumacious?

Ratio:

The Supreme Court closed the contempt proceedings pending against Patanjali Ltd, its Managing Director, Acharya Balkrishna, and co-founder Baba Ramdev over the publication of misleading medical advertisements in breach of a court undertaking.

Judgement

The Supreme Court closed the contempt proceedings against Patanjali Ayurved, its Managing Director Acharya Balkrishna, and co-founder Baba Ramdev over the publication of misleading medical advertisements. While granting relief to Patanjali Ayurved, the top court bench said “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.” It also warned them to strictly abide by the terms of their undertakings, adding that dishonoring the terms of the undertakings will be viewed strictly and the ensuing consequences would indeed be grave.