LexIN RE: PATANJALI AYURVED LIMITED THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, ACHARYA BALKRISHNA AND BABA RAMDEV IN THE MATTER OF:INDIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION AND ANR versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[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 –
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.