<p>New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday 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. </p><p>A bench of Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah closed contempt proceedings initiated against Yoga Guru Baba Ramdev and Patanjali MD Acharya by accepting the apologies tendered by them.</p><p>The court asked them to be cautious in their future conduct and strictly abide by their undertakings or "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".</p>.'Hiding behind religion': Pawan Khera slams de-notification of Army buffer zone in Ayodhya after land parcels 'bought by Adani, Ramdev'.<p>The court pointed out, "If a party or the advocate acts in such a manner so as to convey to the court a firm conviction that an undertaking is being given regardless of the fact that the word “undertaking” has not been specifically mentioned, that party will be bound down and it will be no answer that he did not think that he was giving it or that he was misunderstood."</p><p>The court, in its decision, noted 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 it.</p><p>During the proceedings, the court had twice rejected apologies tendered by Ramdev and Balkrishna.</p><p>"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 stressed.</p><p>Both Ramdev and Balkrishna were found to have breached an undertakings given by their counsel before the court in November, 2023 against misleading advertisement.</p><p>"When an undertaking is given before the court for any purpose, be it for payment of money or for vacating a property or for doing an act or for refraining from doing a particular act and compliances are not made, contempt proceedings can be drawn up," the bench said.</p><p>In the matter, the court also told both Ramdev and Balkrishna that 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, would be viewed strictly and the ensuing consequences could indeed be grave.</p><p>The matter emanated out of a petition filed by the IMA in 2022 alleging a smear campaign by Patanjali and Ramdev against the Covid vaccination drive and modern systems of medicine.</p>.Delhi High Court directs Ramdev to remove statements claiming Patanjali's Coronil can cure Covid.<p>On February 27, the Supreme Court had issued show cause notice to Baba Ramdev and Balkrishna for breach of undertakings made in November, 2023 that the company would refrain from advertisements.</p><p>The bench had also slammed the Centre for its inaction against Patanjali's "misleading and false" advertisements claiming cure for various diseases and restrained the company run by Baba Ramdev from making such announcements from now.</p><p>On March 19, the court had directed Ramdev and Balkrishna to be personally present for failing to file a reply to show cause notice in contempt proceedings against them.</p><p>On April 2, the court had rejected their apologies, saying it is "perfunctory and mere a lip service" and there was "absolute defiance and belligerence" by them.</p><p>On April 10, the court had once again declined to accept the apologies tendered by them for their wilful, and deliberate disobedience of undertaking in relation to misleading advertisements claiming cures for various diseases.</p><p>On April 16, the court had granted them more time "to take steps to redeem themselves and show their bona fide" in the case. On April 30, the court noted marked improvement in their apologies.</p><p>Afterwards, they also published apologies in all leading national dailies, which have now been accepted by the court.</p>
<p>New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday 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. </p><p>A bench of Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah closed contempt proceedings initiated against Yoga Guru Baba Ramdev and Patanjali MD Acharya by accepting the apologies tendered by them.</p><p>The court asked them to be cautious in their future conduct and strictly abide by their undertakings or "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".</p>.'Hiding behind religion': Pawan Khera slams de-notification of Army buffer zone in Ayodhya after land parcels 'bought by Adani, Ramdev'.<p>The court pointed out, "If a party or the advocate acts in such a manner so as to convey to the court a firm conviction that an undertaking is being given regardless of the fact that the word “undertaking” has not been specifically mentioned, that party will be bound down and it will be no answer that he did not think that he was giving it or that he was misunderstood."</p><p>The court, in its decision, noted 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 it.</p><p>During the proceedings, the court had twice rejected apologies tendered by Ramdev and Balkrishna.</p><p>"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 stressed.</p><p>Both Ramdev and Balkrishna were found to have breached an undertakings given by their counsel before the court in November, 2023 against misleading advertisement.</p><p>"When an undertaking is given before the court for any purpose, be it for payment of money or for vacating a property or for doing an act or for refraining from doing a particular act and compliances are not made, contempt proceedings can be drawn up," the bench said.</p><p>In the matter, the court also told both Ramdev and Balkrishna that 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, would be viewed strictly and the ensuing consequences could indeed be grave.</p><p>The matter emanated out of a petition filed by the IMA in 2022 alleging a smear campaign by Patanjali and Ramdev against the Covid vaccination drive and modern systems of medicine.</p>.Delhi High Court directs Ramdev to remove statements claiming Patanjali's Coronil can cure Covid.<p>On February 27, the Supreme Court had issued show cause notice to Baba Ramdev and Balkrishna for breach of undertakings made in November, 2023 that the company would refrain from advertisements.</p><p>The bench had also slammed the Centre for its inaction against Patanjali's "misleading and false" advertisements claiming cure for various diseases and restrained the company run by Baba Ramdev from making such announcements from now.</p><p>On March 19, the court had directed Ramdev and Balkrishna to be personally present for failing to file a reply to show cause notice in contempt proceedings against them.</p><p>On April 2, the court had rejected their apologies, saying it is "perfunctory and mere a lip service" and there was "absolute defiance and belligerence" by them.</p><p>On April 10, the court had once again declined to accept the apologies tendered by them for their wilful, and deliberate disobedience of undertaking in relation to misleading advertisements claiming cures for various diseases.</p><p>On April 16, the court had granted them more time "to take steps to redeem themselves and show their bona fide" in the case. On April 30, the court noted marked improvement in their apologies.</p><p>Afterwards, they also published apologies in all leading national dailies, which have now been accepted by the court.</p>
