The Court said, “It shocks the conscience of court. Indefensible,” and asked Ramdev’s lawyer to come back with instructions. The Court also directed Ramdev’s counsel to make sure he remains present in the proceedings.
NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court strongly criticised Patanjali founder Baba Ramdev on Tuesday (22nd April) for making communal comments against Hamdard, a well-known pharmaceutical and food company, and its popular product Rooh Afza.
The court was hearing a defamation suit filed by Hamdard National Foundation India against Patanjali Foods Limited and Baba Ramdev.
During the initial hearing, Justice Amit Bansal expressed serious concern over Ramdev’s statements.
The Court said, “It shocks the conscience of court. Indefensible,“ and asked Ramdev’s lawyer to come back with instructions. The Court also directed Ramdev’s counsel to make sure he remains present in the proceedings.
Background
Yoga guru and Patanjali founder Baba Ramdev has stirred up another controversy with his latest campaign targeting soft drinks and popular beverages like Rooh Afza, referring to them as part of a so-called “Sharbat Jihad”. His remarks, widely shared on social media platform X (formerly Twitter), have sparked widespread criticism for their communal undertones and misleading health claims.
In a recent social media post, Patanjali wrote:
“Protect your family and innocent children from the poison of toilet cleaners being sold in the name of soft drinks and ‘sharbat Jihad’. Bring home only Patanjali Sharbat and Juices. Find the nearest store by searching ‘Patanjali Store / Chikitsalya Near Me’ on Google or clicking the link below.”
Ramdev’s ‘Sharbat Jihad’ Campaign
In the accompanying video, Ramdev compares popular soft drinks to toilet cleaners, urging people to make a “conscious choice” and choose Patanjali’s juices instead. He further highlights the supposed health benefits of Patanjali’s drinks, presenting them as a cleaner, more ethical alternative to mainstream soft beverages.
Social media users were quick to notice the communal angle, especially when Ramdev appeared to target Hamdard’s Rooh Afza without directly naming it.
In the viral video, Ramdev says:
“If you drink that sharbat (Roohafza), madarsa’s will be built. If you drink Patanjali Gulab sharbat, gurukuls will be built.”
Critics have accused Ramdev of using Islamophobia as a marketing tool.
One user wrote,
“Lala Ramdev, who is using islamophobia as a legit marketing strategy to build a business empire.”
Others pointed out the irony of his language.
“Gulab and Sharbat words are from Arabic btw!!” quipped a user.
Another questioned his logic:
“Par…..Roohafza to Dabur ka hai.. which is owned by Burmans..I think ..so how come Burman earning money from the sale will go to madarsas…?”
These remarks were viewed as communal and offensive. Congress leader Digvijaya Singh had already filed a police complaint in Bhopal against Ramdev, accusing him of promoting religious hatred.
In his defence, Ramdev claimed that he “had not named any specific brand in his video.”
Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing Hamdard, told the High Court that Ramdev was continuing his attacks on Hamdard without any pause and was now targeting the religious identity of the company’s owners.
Rohatgi stated, “This is a case which is shocking, which goes beyond disparagement. This is a case of creating communal divide, akin to hate speech. It will not have protection from law of defamation.”
He further stressed the urgency of stopping such harmful videos immediately.
“Such videos should not be allowed even for a moment. We have enough problems in the country already,” Rohatgi told the Court.
He also mentioned that Ramdev had made similar remarks against Himalaya, another well-known company, only because it is owned by Muslims.
Rohatgi reminded the Court that Ramdev had previously been pulled up by the Supreme Court for making statements against allopathy during the COVID-19 pandemic.
On a lighter note, he said Ramdev had accepted he was wrong back then. “In that case, he conceded that he was on ‘the wrong side‘,” Rohatgi remarked.
Rohatgi urged the Court to take strong action to stop this kind of behaviour.
He said, “A hard hand is required to nip this in bud.”
Meanwhile, Patanjali is already facing several legal challenges. Courts, particularly in Kerala, are hearing cases under the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954, for alleged false claims made by Patanjali about the effectiveness of its products in curing ailments such as diabetes, hypertension, obesity, and even COVID-19.
The Supreme Court of India has been highly critical of Patanjali’s advertising methods. The Court directed the company to withdraw misleading advertisements and stop selling certain products whose licenses were cancelled by the Uttarakhand government.
Adding to their troubles, the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) ordered a recall of a batch of Patanjali’s red chilli powder, citing non-compliance with food safety standards.
Case Title: Hamdard National Foundation India v. Patanjali Foods Limited & Anr
