Supreme Court closes contempt proceedings against Patanjali Ayurved, “Their subsequent conduct demonstrates that they have made sincere efforts to purge themselves”

Today (August 13, 2024), the Supreme Court (SC) of India gave a big relief to Patanjali Ayurved, its Managing Director Acharya Balkrishna, and co-founder Baba Ramdev as it closed the contempt proceedings against them over the publication of misleading medical advertisements. The two-judge bench of the top court constituting Justice Hima Kohli and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah heard the matter. The SC, in its judgment, 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.” Moreover, the top court cautioned the contemnors to strictly abide by the terms of their undertakings. It added, “Any future intransigence on their part, whether by act, deed or speech that could tantamount to violating the orders of the Court or dishonoring the terms of the undertakings, shall be viewed strictly and the ensuing consequences could indeed be grave. In that eventuality, the sword of contempt that has now been returned to rest in its sheath shall be flourished as swiftly as these proceedings were originally initiated.” Lastly, the SC said, “The present proceedings are closed and the notice to show cause issued to the proposed contemnors is discharged.”

While closing the contempt proceedings, the SC bench observed, “...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 to this Court, subsequent thereto after they tendered an unqualified apology to this Court, efforts have been made by them to take steps to make amends. This was not only by expressing regret for their conduct on affidavit and in person but also by taking steps to publicize the apology tendered by them through advertisements published prominently in the National and Regional newspapers.” It added, “No doubt the wisdom of tendering an unconditional apology dawned belatedly on the proposed contemnors after this Court rejected the first attempt made by them to offer a qualified apology, but their subsequent conduct demonstrates that they have made sincere efforts to purge themselves.”