The Delhi High Court on Friday brought closure to a defamation suit filed by Hamdard National Foundation India after Yoga guru Ramdev and Patanjali Foods Ltd assured they would not make any more disparaging remarks against Hamdard’s popular beverage, Rooh Afza.
Justice Amit Bansal noted that the affidavits submitted by Ramdev and Patanjali were legally binding, and based on their undertakings, decreed the case in Hamdard’s favour.
Background
The case stemmed from comments made by Ramdev while promoting Patanjali’s “gulab sharbat,” in which he allegedly claimed that proceeds from the sale of Rooh Afza were being used to fund the construction of madrasas and mosques. Hamdard, in response, filed a lawsuit accusing Ramdev of damaging its brand reputation through inflammatory and unfounded statements.
One particularly controversial phrase used by Ramdev—”sharbat jihad”—was singled out by the court as being beyond justification. Justice Bansal said the remark “shook the conscience of the court,” and was indefensible.
Court Demands Action, Ramdev Responds
On April 22, the court had directed both Ramdev and Patanjali to submit affidavits committing to refrain from making any future derogatory comments about competitors’ products. The court also ordered the immediate removal of any objectionable content from online platforms.
While Hamdard’s counsel argued that the controversial video had merely been made private rather than fully taken down, Ramdev’s legal team maintained that he had “great respect for the court” and intended full compliance.
After the court warned of possible contempt proceedings during a May 1 hearing, Ramdev’s counsel assured that any remaining objectionable content would be removed within 24 hours.
Legal Undertakings Now Binding
Justice Bansal, satisfied with the undertakings provided, declared that the case could be closed. “The averments of Ramdev and Patanjali Foods Ltd in their affidavits are binding on them,” he stated, bringing formal closure to the defamation suit.
Message On Accountability In Brand Promotion
This case highlights the growing scrutiny of public figures and brands when promoting their own products at the expense of others. The court’s firm stance underscores that freedom of speech in business promotions does not extend to unsubstantiated or communal remarks that harm reputations or incite division.
With the lawsuit now closed, Ramdev’s commitment to avoid similar conduct in the future remains on judicial record, binding in both legal and ethical terms.
Read More: Supreme Court, Delhi High Court, States High Court, International
