Delhi HC slams Baba Ramdev’s ‘Sharbat Jihad’ remark, orders removal of defamatory ad

The Delhi High Court has strongly criticised yoga guru Baba Ramdev for his controversial remarks linking a popular sharbat to communal funding, calling the comments “shocking” and “indefensible.” The court directed Patanjali Ayurved to immediately withdraw promotional videos that allegedly defame Hamdard's iconic drink, Rooh Afza.

The controversy erupted after Ramdev, in a promotional video for Patanjali's herbal beverages, claimed that a company selling sharbat, widely interpreted to be Hamdard, is using its profits to fund the construction of mosques and madrasas. The video, posted on Facebook by ‘Patanjali Products’, went further by urging people to avoid “toilet cleaners sold in the name of soft drinks” and accused rival products of engaging in a so-called “Sharbat Jihad.”

“If you drink this, then gurukuls and vishwavidyalayas will be built,” Ramdev said while promoting Patanjali’s sharbat, a statement that has since drawn severe backlash and legal scrutiny.

Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing Hamdard, argued that the video goes beyond product disparagement and amounts to communal hate speech. “This is a shocking case of communal divide. It is hate speech under the guise of marketing,” he said during the hearing on April 22.

Justice Amit Bansal, presiding over the matter, observed, “It shocks the conscience of the court. This is indefensible,” stressing that such remarks are capable of disrupting communal harmony and public order.

Appearing on behalf of Patanjali and Ramdev, Senior Advocate Rajiv Nayar assured the court that the objectionable videos would be taken down and emphasised that there was no intention to target any religion. “I have advised. We are pulling down the videos,” Nayar submitted.

The court has also directed Ramdev to submit an affidavit undertaking that no such statements or promotional content will be issued in the future.

This incident adds to the mounting legal troubles for Patanjali Ayurved. In August 2024, the Supreme Court had warned the company against misleading advertisements, closing contempt proceedings only after assurances were given by Ramdev and Acharya Balkrishna.

The case highlights the growing scrutiny on promotional ethics in the FMCG and wellness sectors, particularly when communal sensitivities are involved.