Patanjali appeals Delhi HC order over Chyawanprash ads

Patanjali Ayurved Ltd. has approached a division bench of the Delhi High Court, challenging an earlier single-judge order that restrained the company from airing parts of its Patanjali Special Chyawanprash advertisements.

On July 3, Justice Mini Pushkarna of the Delhi High Court had found a prima facie case of disparagement in the commercials following a plea by Dabur India Ltd., maker of Dabur Chyawanprash. The court noted that the ads, narrated by Ramdev, created the impression that only Patanjali had the Ayurvedic or Vedic knowledge necessary to produce an “original” Chyawanprash.

The judge underlined there is no legal requirement that manufacturers must possess such knowledge to produce Chyawanprash. The order directed Patanjali to delete or modify certain lines before airing the ads, including:

“Why settle for ordinary Chyawanprash made with 40 herbs?”

“Jinko Ayurved or Vedon ka gyan nahi … original Chyawanprash kaise bana payenge?”

“Toh ordinary Chyawanprash kyu?”

After these modifications, the court allowed the company to continue running its campaign.

Case History

The dispute began when Dabur filed a commercial suit (CS(COMM)1195/2024) before the Delhi High Court, alleging that Patanjali’s Chyawanprash ads disparaged its flagship product and the category at large.

Dabur argued the campaign implied other manufacturers lacked the knowledge or authenticity to produce chyawanprash in the traditional way. Acting on the plea, Justice Mini Pushkarna passed the July 3 interim order, directing Patanjali to delete objectionable lines before releasing the ads.

Patanjali, however, contended that its commercials did not mention Dabur by name and are now pressing this argument in appeal. The division bench comprising Justices C Hari Shankar and Om Prakash Shukla is hearing the matter.

At the core of the case lies the balance between competitive advertising and disparagement. While the single-judge order flagged the potential to mislead consumers by positioning rivals as “ordinary” or “inauthentic,” the appeal will test whether those restrictions hold.

The outcome is being closely watched by FMCG players and advertisers, as it could further define how far brands can go in comparative advertising, particularly when authenticity and tradition are used as selling points.