Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court of India initiated suo motu contempt proceedings against Patanjali Ayurved Limited, its Managing Director Acharya Balkrishna, and Baba Ramdev for violating an undertaking given to the Court on 21st November, 2023. The background of the case is a writ petition filed by the Indian Medical Association (IMA) under Article 32 of the Constitution, alleging that Patanjali and its promoters were engaged in a systematic campaign of misinformation and disparagement against modern medicine, misleading the public. Despite multiple complaints to authorities, no action was taken, prompting IMA to approach the Supreme Court. On 21st November, 2023, the Court recorded an assurance from Patanjali's counsel that there would be no violation of laws relating to advertising or branding of products, and no casual statements claiming medicinal efficacy or against any system of medicine would be made. However, on 27th February, 2024, IMA brought to the Court's attention that Patanjali had published an advertisement on 4th December, 2023 claiming to completely cure diseases like high blood pressure, sugar, thyroid, arthritis, asthma, and organ failures, and that Baba Ramdev had held a press conference on 22nd November, 2023 (the day after the undertaking) making similar claims and disparaging modern medicine. The Court found a prima facie violation of the undertaking and issued a show cause notice for contempt. The Court also restrained Patanjali from advertising or branding products meant to cure diseases specified in the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954 and Rules, 1955, and cautioned them against making any statements against any system of medicine. The judgment discusses the relevant provisions of the DMR Act and Rules, which prohibit advertisements for treatment of diseases like diabetes, heart diseases, blood pressure, obesity, and asthma. The Court noted that the advertisements and press conference statements directly contravened the undertaking and the law. The matter was listed for further proceedings on the contempt charge.
Headnote
A) Contempt of Court - Violation of Undertaking - Patanjali Ayurved Limited and its Managing Director Acharya Balkrishna violated the undertaking given to the Supreme Court on 21st November, 2023 by publishing advertisements and making statements claiming permanent cure for diseases listed in the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954 and Rules, 1955, and by disparaging modern medicine. Held that such conduct amounts to contempt of court (Paras 3-5, 8-10). B) Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954 - Prohibition of Misleading Advertisements - Sections 3(d) and 4 - The advertisements published by Patanjali claiming to completely cure diseases such as diabetes, heart diseases, high/low blood pressure, obesity, and asthma are prohibited under Section 3(d) read with the Schedule to the Act and Rule 6 of the Rules. Held that such advertisements are misleading and violate the Act (Paras 6-9). C) Constitutional Law - Article 32 - Public Interest Litigation - The Indian Medical Association invoked Article 32 to raise a grievance against Patanjali's campaign of misinformation and disparagement against modern medicine. Held that the Court can entertain such petitions to protect public health and ensure compliance with law (Para 2).
Issue of Consideration
Whether Patanjali Ayurved Limited, its Managing Director Acharya Balkrishna, and Baba Ramdev violated the undertaking given to the Supreme Court on 21st November, 2023 by continuing to publish misleading advertisements and making disparaging statements against modern medicine, thereby committing contempt of court.
Final Decision
The Court issued a show cause notice to Patanjali Ayurved Limited and its Managing Director Acharya Balkrishna as to why contempt of court proceedings should not be initiated against them. The Court also restrained Patanjali from advertising or branding products meant to cure diseases specified in the DMR Act and Rules, and cautioned them against making any statements against any system of medicine. The matter was listed for further proceedings.
Law Points
- Contempt of court
- violation of undertaking
- Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act
- 1954
- misleading advertisements
- disparagement of medical systems
- Article 32 of Constitution of India
