Delhi High Court Slams Patanjali: “Either Withdraw the Appeal or be Prepared to Face Costs”, Hearing on September 23

The Delhi High Court slams Patanjali Ayurved over Chyawanprash ads, asking the company to withdraw its appeal or face costs. Next hearing scheduled for September 23, 2025.

Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!

Delhi High Court Slams Patanjali: "Either Withdraw the Appeal or be Prepared to Face Costs", Hearing on September 23

NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court on Friday slammed Patanjali Ayurved for filing an appeal against a single-judge order that had directed the company to modify certain portions of its advertisements for Patanjali Special Chyawanprash. The ads were alleged to have disparaged rival products, particularly Dabur’s flagship Chyawanprash, which dominates the market with over 60% share.

The Court’s Observations

A Division Bench of Justices Hari Shankar and Om Prakash Shukla questioned Patanjali’s decision to challenge the interim order, observing that the direction was limited and did not call for a complete ban on the advertisement. The Bench asked Patanjali to either withdraw its appeal or be prepared to face costs.

The matter has now been posted for further hearing on September 23, 2025.

Background of the Dispute

In July 2025, Justice Mini Pushkarna of the Delhi High Court had partly allowed Dabur Limited’s plea alleging disparagement. Dabur contended that Patanjali’s campaign misrepresented Ayurvedic formulations, suggested Dabur lacked fidelity to Ayurvedic tradition, and branded its Chyawanprash as “ordinary” and inferior.

Justice Pushkarna ruled that certain claims went beyond permissible commercial puffery and crossed into disparagement. The Court specifically directed Patanjali to delete phrases like:

  • “Why settle for ordinary Chyawanprash made with 40 herbs?”
  • Storyboard references implying that only those with “true Ayurvedic knowledge” could prepare the “original Chyawanprash.”

The Court clarified that while advertisements could continue, they were to be broadcast and published only after necessary modifications.

Patanjali’s Grounds of Appeal

Patanjali challenged the single-judge order before the Commercial Appellate Division, arguing that:

  • The ads did not directly reference Dabur by name.
  • The word “ordinary” has a neutral connotation in law and advertising practice.
  • The formulation of Patanjali’s Chyawanprash is based on Ayurved Sar Sangrah and is regulatorily approved.
  • Exaggeration is an accepted element of advertising under the doctrine of puffery.
  • The order prematurely adjudicated on factual disputes, such as whether Chyawanprash should be made with 40 herbs or 51 herbs.

Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Patanjali

FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE

author

Aastha

B.A.LL.B., LL.M., Advocate, Associate Legal Editor

Similar Posts