Real judgements, distilled

Legal Case Shots

Court judgements broken down into the case type, how the decision played out, and the lesson worth remembering, with the full judgement available as a PDF.

Frequently asked questions

Is this suitable for use in legal research and court filings?+

Legal Case Shots is built to help you quickly identify and understand relevant precedent. For citation in pleadings or filings, always verify against the full judgment PDF and current citation format (e.g., 2026 INSC ___).

How is a "lesson learnt" different from the judgment's holding?+

The holding is what the court legally decided. The lesson learnt translates that into a practical takeaway: what a lawyer should factor into case strategy or client advice as a result of this precedent.

Is the full judgment available, or just a summary?+

Both. Each case shows a distilled summary (case type, key holding, and lesson learnt) and links to the full judgment as a PDF for when you need the complete text for research or citation.

Can I filter judgments by date or case type?+

Yes. Use Advanced Filters to narrow results by decision date and by practice area, including Constitutional Law, Criminal Law, Service & Administrative Law, Family Law, Civil Property & Inheritance, and Labour & Industrial Law.

Can I search judgments by a specific judge?+

Yes. You can filter judgments by the judge or bench that decided the case, which is useful for tracking how a particular judge has reasoned on similar issues across multiple rulings.

What is Legal Case Shots?+

Legal Case Shots is a searchable database of Supreme Court of India judgments, each broken down into the case type, the court's key holding, and a practical lesson learnt, with the full judgment available as a PDF for citation or deeper reading.

Consumer RightsSupreme Court of India

In Re: Patanjali Ayurved Limited, Through Its Managing Director, Acharya Balkrishna & Baba Ramdev

Not available · 2024 INSC 605Decided 13 Aug 2024
Not available
Justice Hima Kohli · Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah

Background

The Indian Medical Association had approached the Supreme Court alleging that Patanjali Ayurved, its Managing Director Acharya Balkrishna, and Baba Ramdev were running a sustained misinformation campaign disparaging modern (allopathic) medicine through misleading advertisements. In November 2023, the Court recorded an assurance from Patanjali that it would stop making false claims about the medicinal efficacy of its products and would not violate advertising laws. When Patanjali and its principals continued to issue such advertisements and held a press conference repeating the claims, the Court initiated suo motu contempt proceedings against them for breaching their own undertaking.

Decision Breakdown

The Court rejected an initial "conditional apology" that tried to justify the conduct while also apologising, holding that justification and apology cannot coexist. After the Court's rejection, Acharya Balkrishna and Baba Ramdev tendered an unconditional and unqualified apology on affidavit and in person, undertook not to repeat the violations, and published the apology prominently in national and regional newspapers (their first attempt at publishing it was rejected as being in illegible fine print). Weighing the initial contemptuous conduct against the subsequent genuine remedial steps (the apology, undertakings, and corrective publicity) the Court accepted the apology and closed the contempt proceedings, while sternly cautioning that any future breach would be dealt with strictly.

Lesson Learnt

Advertisers and public figures cannot make an "apology" conditional on self-justification. Courts expect genuine, unqualified contrition; and once a party gives the Supreme Court an undertaking, repeated or public violation of it can trigger contempt proceedings that only sincere corrective steps (not token gestures) can resolve.

In Re: Patanjali Ayurved Limited, Through Its Managing Director, Acharya Balkrishna & Baba Ramdev – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware