In a relief to yoga guru Ramdev, his aide Balkrishna and Patanjali Ayurved Limited, the Supreme Court on Tuesday closed the contempt proceedings initiated against them for “violation” of the undertakings given before the court in the misleading advertisements case.

While the apex court accepted their apology and closed the matter, it cautioned them to strictly abide by the terms of their undertakings.

“Any future intransigence on their part, whether by act, deed or speech that could tantamount to violating the orders of the court or dishonouring the terms of the undertakings, shall be viewed strictly and the ensuing consequences could indeed be grave,” a bench of Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah said.

“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,” the bench said in its 41-page verdict.

The contempt proceedings was initiated by the top court which is hearing a plea filed by the Indian Medical Association alleging a smear campaign against the Covid vaccination drive and modern systems of medicine.

In its November 21, 2023 order passed in the matter, the top court had noted that the counsel representing Patanjali Ayurved had assured it that “henceforth there shall not be any violation of any law(s), especially relating to advertising or branding of products manufactured and marketed by it and, further, that no casual statements claiming medicinal efficacy or against any system of medicine will be released to the media in any form”. The top court had said Patanjali Ayurved Ltd is “bound down to such assurance”.

The alleged non-adherence to the specific assurance and subsequent media statements by the firm had irked the apex court, which later issued notice to them to show cause as to why contempt proceedings be not initiated against them.

In its verdict, the bench said, “...We are of the opinion that though 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”.

It noted they also took steps to publicise the apology tendered by them through advertisements published prominently in the national and regional newspapers.

“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,” the bench 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,” it said.

Referring to the first affidavit filed by Balkrishna tendering an unqualified apology on behalf of Patanjali, the bench noted it had rejected the same for the reason that he had tried to justify his conduct by seeking to offer an explanation for the advertisements issued.

“As already observed by this court, there cannot be a justification and an apology. The two things are incompatible and do not go hand-in-hand,” it said.

The bench noted that thereafter, fresh affidavits were filed by Balkrishna and Ramdev in April wherein an unconditional and unqualified apology was tendered for the breach of statement recorded in the November 21, 2023 order.

It noted that a public apology was also published in various newspapers having wide circulation across the country.

“However, when the said advertisements were handed over for the perusal of the court, the purported public apologies were rejected as meaningless and a mere lip service. This was for the reason that the public apologies were published in the newspapers in such a fine print that the same were virtually illegible,” the bench said.

It noted later, the public apology carried in various newspapers was not only in bold words, but also published at prominent places.

The bench, which referred to the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, said it needed no emphasis that the power of contempt ought to be exercised with caution, care and sparingly.

“The contemptuous act complained of must be such that would result in obstruction of justice, adversely affect the majesty of law and impact the dignity of the courts of law,” it said.

The bench said the procedure adopted during the contempt proceedings must be fair and just and the party must have every opportunity to place its position before the court.

It said any apology tendered by a party in contempt proceedings must be unconditional and unqualified and such an apology must also demonstrate that it has been made with a bona fide intention and not just to wriggle out of a tight situation.

“Tendering a qualified apology is akin to a game of dice. It could either have a positive outcome or a negative result. If the contemnor tenders a conditional apology and expects luck to play a role in the outcome of such an apology, then he should be ready to face the consequence of an outright rejection,” the bench said.