Summary
In suo motu contempt proceedings, the Supreme Court found that Patanjali Ayurved, its Managing Director Acharya Balkrishna and Baba Ramdev had breached the undertaking recorded on 21/11/2023 by holding a press conference the next day and publishing advertisements claiming cures for diseases listed under the Drugs and Magic Remedies Act. Since their later unconditional apologies, prominently published public apologies and withdrawal steps showed sincere efforts to purge the contempt, the Court accepted the apologies, cautioned them and closed the proceedings.
Issues
- Whether a statement made by counsel on instructions and recorded in the Court's order, by which the party was bound down, is an undertaking whose breach is civil contempt.
- Whether the press conference of 22/11/2023 and the advertisement of 04/12/2023 breached that undertaking and the Drugs and Magic Remedies Act and Rules.
- Whether the apologies tendered, first qualified and later unconditional, should be accepted.
Provisions considered
- Section 2(b), Contempt of Courts Act, 1971The Court read civil contempt as covering two distinct categories, wilful disobedience of a court's process and wilful breach of an undertaking given to a court. 'Wilful' means deliberate and intentional, excluding casual, accidental or bona fide acts. An assurance given by counsel on which the Court acts is an undertaking whose breach is contempt. (¶¶ 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 50)
- Section 12(1) and Explanation, Contempt of Courts Act, 1971Relying on Priya Gupta and Bal Kishan Giri, the Court noted that an apology may lead to remission of punishment only if it satisfies the court as bona fide and unconditional, judged by the contemnor's conduct before and after it and the stage at which it is tendered. (¶¶ 45, 46)
- Article 129, Constitution of IndiaAs a court of record the Supreme Court has power to punish for contempt of itself, a power to be exercised with caution and sparingly, following a fair procedure in which the alleged contemnor is fully heard. (¶¶ 22, 23)
- Sections 3(d) and 4, and the Schedule, Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954Section 3(d) bars taking part in publishing advertisements suggesting use of a drug for diseases in the Schedule, including diabetes, heart diseases, high or low blood pressure and obesity, and Section 4 bars misleading drug advertisements. The Court held that claims of permanent cures for such diseases at the press conference and in the newspaper advertisement violated the Act and the undertaking. (¶¶ 5, 6, 11, 53, 54)
- Rule 6 and Schedule (Asthma), Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Rules, 1955Rule 6 extends the prohibition to diseases in the Rules' Schedule, which includes asthma; claims of curing asthma were held to breach the Rules and the undertaking. (¶¶ 7, 11, 53, 54)
Held
- Contempt jurisdiction is special and quasi-criminal, to be exercised sparingly to protect the administration of justice and the majesty of law rather than individual judges; breach must be proved beyond reasonable doubt, and the procedure must be fair, though the Evidence Act and CrPC do not strictly apply. (¶¶ 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29)
- An undertaking given to the court, unlike one given to the opposite party or a compromise, attracts contempt because a party who obtains a benefit on the faith of it and then breaks it practises a fraud on the court. An undertaking may be given by affidavit, by express oral statement recorded in the order, or by an advocate on the client's behalf, and binds the party even if the word 'undertaking' is not used. (¶¶ 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 50)
- The contemnors did not dispute that the assurance recorded on 21/11/2023 was a binding undertaking. Knowing of it, as their own references to the order showed, they held a press conference the next day accusing doctors of false propaganda and claiming cures for blood pressure, thyroid, type-I diabetes and asthma, and on 04/12/2023 advertised products as permanent cures for scheduled diseases; both breached the undertaking and the DMR Act and Rules. (¶¶ 51, 52, 53, 54)
- An apology in contempt proceedings must be unconditional, unqualified and bona fide; justification and apology are incompatible, and an apology is not a defence or universal remedy. The first affidavit, which apologised while blaming the media department, was a conditional apology and was rightly rejected. (¶¶ 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 55)
- Public apologies printed so small as to be virtually illegible were rejected as lip service; the later apologies published in bold and at prominent places, together with the unconditional apologies on affidavit and in person and the steps to withdraw advertisements and stocks of products whose licences were suspended, showed sincere, if belated, efforts to purge the contempt. (¶¶ 56, 57, 58, 59, 60)
- Accepting the apologies, the Court closed the proceedings but cautioned the contemnors to abide strictly by their undertakings, warning that any future breach by act, deed or speech would be viewed strictly and could have grave consequences. (¶¶ 61, 62)
Result
Apologies accepted; suo motu contempt proceedings closed and the show cause notices discharged, with a caution to strictly abide by the undertakings.