Patanjali ayurved is a multinational conglomerate company which produces food products , cosmetics, ayurvedic medications, and personal care items, with the vision of expanding the country with the advancement of Ayurveda, serving as a model for the rest of the globe. In 2024 , Patanjali Ayurved , founded by Baba Ramdev founded themselves under the accusations of deceptive marketing tactics, false claims, and misleading advertisements finding themselves in centre of ethical and legal disputes.

This research paper will primarily focus on brief overview of the case including the background of the case and the allegations involved in the case. The research paper will also focus on the important key legal issues of the case including the contempt of court notice faced by the Patanjali Ayurvedic . The paper will end with the analysis of the verdict drawn upon by the court regarding the case.

Brief Introduction To The Case:
Utilizing the knowledge of Ayurveda, Patanjali Ayurveda Limited is founded by very popular Indian gurus , Baba Ramdev and Acharya Balkrishna. The company Patanjali Ayurveda is a prominent producer and exporter of Herber and Ayurvedic Products , including medications , processed meals , drinks, personal care, household care items etc. for the service of the people in the society. However because of the accusations of deceptive marketing tactics, false claims, and misleading advertisement , the corporation found itself in the centre of legal as well as legal ethical dispute.

The Indian Medical Association commonly known as the IMA filed the lawsuit in response to the publication of a contentious commercial called ' Misconceptions spread by Allopathy' , which basically criticized the modern medicine and allopathic practices in our country .

The co-founder of the company Patanjali Ayurveda Limited, Baba Ramdev further escalated the dispute by calling allopathy a 'bankrupt science' in reference to the remarks he made. False information was allegedly disseminated by the advertisements , especially on COVID – 19 treatments.

The main contention of the case was that some domestic goods, cosmetics, and health supplements had been promoted with inflated health advantages , which basically raised questions about the accuracy of the claims and their compliance with consumer protection regulations.

By prohibiting Patanjali, from running these commercials and tying its brand to goods that make unproven medical claims like to cure illnesses, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India took decisive action against them. As despite numerous warnings by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India , Patanjali continued its method and attempted civil contempt of court.

The Contempt of Court Act, 1971 was enacted to define and limit the powers of certain courts in punishing contempt of courts. Therefore, the Courts have to be judicious while exercising the powers conferred by the Act.

Civil Contempt as defined under Section 2 (b) of Contempt of Court Act 1971 as wilful disobedience to any judgement , decree, order , direction, writ or other processes of a court or wilful breach of an undertaking given a court. In this particular case, Patanjali found itself committing a civil contempt against the hon'ble Supreme Court of India .

Background of the case
The legal dispute of the case began when Patanjali started advertising it's goods , especially in the light when the world was facing a severe pandemic in 2020 , implying that their alternative ayurvedic remedies might either cure or prevent illness like COVID-19 . This also featured the co-founder of the company, Baba Ramdev branding allopathy a 'bankrupt' science.

In August 2022, the Indian Medical Association, commonly known as the IMA filed a petition against Patanjali for calling allopathy as a 'bankrupt science'. The IMA also filed a petition against Patanjali alleging that the company disseminated false material and undermined public confidence in allopathic medicine , especially related to the vaccines, diabetes, asthma and other diseases.

In November 2023 , Supreme Court had already issued an order forbidding Patanjali from making deceptive promises in advertisement . The court served a contempt notice against Patanjali and its leaders , Baba Ramdev and Acharya Balkrishna, as a result of the company's continuous dissemination of these advertisements in defiance of the court's ruling.

This notification was sent in response to Patanjali's publication of advertisement making repeated claims of curing chronic illness and holding a news conference to support these claims.

Disregarding the authority of the court or interfering with administration of justice is referred to as contempt of court. In this instance, contempt of court proceedings were initiated due to Patanjali's disregard for earlier court orders, which had mandated that they stop their deceptive advertising. The court stressed that such actions demonstrated the disrespect for the court's orders in addition to misleading the public at large.

In this case, contempt of court was a major factor . Contempt proceedings were instituted after it was discovered that Patanjali has broken its prior promises to the court. The company apologised , but the court rejected its early attempts , stating that the statements were not made in a way that made them seem genuine . The contempt charges were eventually dropped in August 2024 after Patanjali eventually apologised appropriately and tried to follow the court's instructions. The court emphasized the need of accountability and moral advertising practices , emphasising that any apologies in contempt instances must be unconditional and genuine.

Even though the Hon'ble Supreme Court strongly objected to Patanjali's conduct by the beginning of 2024. The Hon'ble Supreme Court threatened more severe penalties for Patanjali's ongoing non-compliance in addition to prohibiting the company's ads for illnesses covered under Drugs and Magic Remedies Act. The contempt of court aspect further intensified the legal consequences , which demonstrated the judiciary's strict adherence to its decisions, public confidence in legal system and healthcare advertising standards .

Key legal issues of the case:
Multiple legal issues were involved in this specific case misleading advertisement and contempt of court including the following:

1. Untrue statements: During the pandemic, Patanjali's products were promoted as a means of efficiently preventing or curing COVID-19, a serious worry. It was determined that these statements violated multiple legal prohibitions because they were unsupported and deceptive.
    
2. Criticism of Allopathy: The commercials featured disparaging remarks about allopathic medicine, which confused the public and increased their suspicion of conventional medical procedures. Co-founder Baba Ramdev referred to allopathy as a "bankrupt" science, which was interpreted as damaging misinformation.
    
3. Regulatory Violations: The Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act of 1954 and the Consumer Protection Act of 2019 were both broken by Patanjali's commercials. The propagation of false information about medications and their effectiveness is forbidden by these regulations. Penalties for making such false statements are outlined in the Act and include fines and jail time.

The element of contempt of court arises from Patanjali's disobedience of earlier court directives and warnings.

Regarding their deceptive advertising, Patanjali had already received warnings from the Supreme Court. Patanjali disregarded the court's authority by carrying with the advertisements in spite of these warnings.

In Indian law, contempt of court refers to any action that shows disrespect for the authority of the court or obstructs the administration of justice.

Contempt of court is divided into two categories mainly, which includes being disrespectful to the legal authorities in the courtroom and wilfully disregarding a court's order. When a court determines that an activity qualifies as contempt of court, it has the right to issue an order, known as "found" or "held," declaring that an individual or group has disregarded or disregarded the court's authority during a trial or hearing. This is the judge's most powerful authority to punish behaviour that interferes with the court's regular business. Contempt proceedings are especially used to enforce equitable remedies, such as injunctions.

In this specific case, it was considered disrespectful for deceptive advertising to continue running in spite of warnings by the hon'ble court .

When found in contempt, Patanjali could face severe consequences, including hefty fines and imprisonment. The participation of the Court draws attention to how grave the offences are and how important it is to follow court orders.

Because it makes it clear that persistent disobedience of court orders won't be accepted, the Supreme Court's intervention is crucial. Other corporations can use this as a precedent, which strengthens the legal requirement that they abide by court decisions

Recent verdict of the case:
The Court noted the order dated 23 April 2024, in which it was observed that the apologies tendered by the contemnors were in a small box with fine print so small that reading the apologies without a magnifying glass was impossible. This observation was made after reading newspaper cuttings of the public apology. After that, the apology was printed in bold type with a readable font size.

The Bench went on to discuss the difference between a qualified and an unconditional apology, ruling that any apology made by a party involved in a contempt case had to be both unconditional and unqualified. Such an apology must also demonstrate that it has been given with a genuinely fide intention and not just to wriggle out of a tight situation. Apologising with qualification is like throwing darts. It could either have a positive consequence or a negative result. The contemnor should be prepared to deal with the fallout from an open rejection if he offers a conditional apologies and hopes that fortune will decide how the apology turns out.

The Court stated on November 21, 2023, that it received an assurance that no trite remarks about the medicinal benefits of Patanjali products or against any medical system would be made public in any way. The Court stated that the fact that the contemnors acknowledged that this Court had rendered an order on November 21, 2023, at the press conference, shows that they were aware of the undertaking given.

Despite this, they made derogatory remarks about doctors in practice, claiming that they were disseminating the myth that 'diseases like B.P., thyroid, sugar, asthma, arthritis, kidney and liver failure' and hence had no solution. The Court stated that "even though the contemnors' initial behaviour before they formally apologised to the Court demonstrated that they had broken the agreements they had made with this Court, they have since made efforts to make amends," after they formally apologised to the Court.

The Court noted that, while the wisdom of submitting an unconditional apology dawned belatedly on the defendants after the Court rejected their first attempt to provide a qualified apology, their subsequent conduct suggests that they have taken genuine attempts to purify themselves. Thus, the Court accepted the contemnors' apology and closed the case.

The Court also advised them to strictly adhere to the conditions of their agreements. The Court stressed that any subsequent stubbornness on the part of the contemnors, whether by act, action, or speech that could be seen as a violation of the Court's orders or a breach of the conditions of the undertakings, will be severely scrutinised, with serious repercussions.

Thus, the Court closed the present proceedings and discharged the show cause notice issued to the contemnors.

Conclusion:
The Patanjali fake advertisement case of 2024 raises serious legal concerns about misleading advertising techniques and the consequences of contempt of court. Patanjali's case emphasises the necessity of ethical advertising standards and compliance with legal frameworks established to protect consumers and maintain the integrity of the healthcare system. The convergence of consumer protection statutes and contempt of court demonstrates the judiciary's dedication to preserving public trust in medical advertising and practices.

Patanjali's contempt of court charges emphasised the company's disregard for judicial instructions, prompting tougher legal ramifications. The case emphasised the judiciary's role in establishing corporate accountability and protecting the public from deceptive advertising. The outcome of this lawsuit represents a key milestone in making businesses accountable for their legal conduct.

The contempt of court accusation was essential in emphasising the gravity of the circumstances. By bringing up the possibility of disciplinary measures against Patanjali's leadership, the Court displayed its commitment to upholding the judicial process.

This case sets a precedent for future corporate accountability in advertising strategies, as well as the penalty of contempt of court.

Bibliography:

1. https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2024/08/13/patanjali-misleading-adscase-supreme-court-drops-contempt-of-court-charges-against-baba-ramdev-acharya-balkrishna
2. https://patanjaliayurved.org/vision mission.html