GRANTS BAIL IN NDPS CASE, HOLDS DISCLOSURE STATEMENTS ALONE INSUFFICIENT FOR CONVICTION Foreign Conviction Does Not Shield Accused from Indian Prosecution: Uttarakhand High Court Denies Bail in Bitcoin Money Laundering Case Forfeiture of Earnest Money Must Be Reasonable, No Interest Payable If Buyer Cancels Due to Falling Property Prices: Supreme Court IBPS | Exam Bodies Must Provide Scribes and Extra Time to All Disabled Candidates, Not Just Those With Benchmark Disabilities: Supreme Court Minor Discrepancies in Witness Statements Do Not Discredit Their Reliability," Rules Punjab and Haryana High Court in Murder Case Suspicion, No Matter How Strong, Cannot Replace Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Karnataka High Court Acquits Two in Murder Case Prolonged Incarceration Violates Article 21 – Bail Granted Despite NDPS Act Restrictions: Kerala High Court Kolkata Book Fair Not a Public Function: Calcutta High Court Dismisses VHP's Writ Petition A Gift With Conditions is Not a Gift in Perpetuity – Violation of Purpose Mandates Reversion: Andhra Pradesh High Court Employee Cannot Demand Advocate in Domestic Enquiry Unless Employer’s Representative is a Legally Trained Mind: Bombay High Court Milkman as Scribe Raises Eyebrows: High Court Dismisses Property Claim Over Suspicious Will Contractor Bound by Contractual Terms, No Right to Claim Damages After Accepting Extensions: Supreme Court On Failure of the Highest Bidder, Property Must Be Re-Auctioned, Private Negotiation Impermissible: Karnataka High Court Preventive Detention Without Procedural Compliance is Unconstitutional: Kerala High Court Quashes Detention Order Under KAAPA Courts Are for Litigants, Not the Other Way Around: Madras High Court Overhauls Family Court Procedures Landlord is the Best Judge of His Requirement; Tenant Cannot Dictate Alternative Properties: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Eviction Khatedari Rights Cannot Be Claimed Over SC Land Through Adverse Possession: Rajasthan High Court A Law Cannot Be Struck Down on Overruled Precedents: Calcutta High Court Upholds West Bengal Entry Tax Act Producer of Film Is First Owner of Soundtrack Unless Contract States Otherwise: Delhi High Court Affirms Saregama’s Rights Mere Refusal to Repay a Loan Does Not Constitute Abetment of Suicide Under Section 306 IPC: Allahabad High Court Mere Re-Appreciation of Evidence Is Not Permissible in a Second Appeal: Andhra Pradesh High Court Merely Alleging Money Laundering Without Evidence is an Abuse of Legal Process: Bombay High Court Imposed 1 Lakh Cost on ED Right to Private Defence is Not Absolute and Cannot Extend to Inflicting Fatal Injuries: Punjab and Haryana High Court Failure to Pay Business Dues Does Not Constitute a Criminal Offense: Calcutta High Court Quashes Cheating and Criminal Breach of Trust Proceedings Income Tax | Reassessment Notices Must Pass Surviving Time Test—Delhi High Court Directs AOs to Comply with Supreme Court's Rajeev Bansal Ruling Perjury Allegations Against Wife and Counsel Dismissed; Court Imposes Costs for Frivolous Litigation: Kerala High Court Madras High Court Permits Protest on Temple Land Encroachment Issue, Imposes Restrictions for Public Order A Senior Citizen’s Right to Peace Cannot Be Held Hostage by a Permissive Occupant: Madhya Pradesh High Court Orders Eviction of Son-in-Law from Father-in-Law’s House Widows Applying on Merit Cannot Be Denied Relaxation Under Two-Child Norm: Rajasthan High Court

Supreme Court Slams Patanjali for 'Willful Disobedience,' Questions Integrity of Apologies in Contempt Case

02 December 2024 2:34 PM

By: sayum


The Supreme Court of India has commenced contempt proceedings against Patanjali Ayurved Limited, its Managing Director Acharya Balkrishna, and its prominent face Baba Ramdev. The proceedings stem from allegations of deliberate disobedience to court orders, particularly concerning misleading advertisements and public statements regarding the medicinal efficacy of Patanjali's products. The Court has emphasized the gravity of the situation, questioning the sincerity of the apologies tendered by the accused parties.

The Indian Medical Association (IMA) initiated legal action against Patanjali Ayurved, alleging that the company, led by Acharya Balkrishna and Baba Ramdev, was engaging in a systematic campaign of misinformation against modern medicine. This led to a suo motu contempt petition after Patanjali continued to release advertisements and make public statements in violation of an earlier court order. Despite assurances given to the Court, Patanjali allegedly persisted with these activities, leading to the initiation of contempt proceedings.

The Supreme Court expressed significant reservations regarding the apologies tendered by Patanjali Ayurved and Baba Ramdev. The Court noted that the apologies appeared to be an attempt to evade responsibility rather than a genuine acknowledgment of wrongdoing. For instance, the Court pointed out discrepancies in the dates and contents of affidavits filed by the contemnors, highlighting that the affidavits seemed to be crafted to avoid personal appearances before the Court​.

The Court was particularly concerned with Patanjali’s advertisements, which claimed that their products could cure various serious ailments such as high blood pressure, diabetes, and heart diseases. These claims were made despite an undertaking given by Patanjali to refrain from such practices. The advertisements were published even after the Court explicitly prohibited them, leading to the conclusion that Patanjali had willfully disobeyed the Court's orders​.

The judgment heavily focused on the concept of "willful disobedience," a critical element in establishing contempt of court. The Court emphasized that mere non-compliance with a court order is insufficient for contempt; the non-compliance must be intentional and with full knowledge of the consequences. In this case, the Court found that Patanjali’s actions were deliberate and intended to subvert the authority of the judiciary, thereby undermining the rule of law​.

The bench observed, “The respect and authority commanded by courts of law are the greatest guarantee to an ordinary citizen that his rights shall be protected. The entire democratic fabric of society will crumble down if the respect for the judiciary is undermined.” This underscores the Court’s view that the actions of Patanjali and Baba Ramdev were not just legal violations but also an affront to the judicial system​.

The Supreme Court's decision to initiate contempt proceedings against Patanjali Ayurved Limited and Baba Ramdev highlights the judiciary's firm stance on maintaining its authority and the integrity of its orders. The ongoing case serves as a critical reminder of the consequences of defying court orders and the importance of upholding the rule of law. The final outcome of these proceedings will likely have significant implications for corporate accountability and the enforcement of judicial directives in India.

Date of Decision: 13th August 2024

Similar News