Delhi HC Allows Patanjali to Use 'Ordinary Chyawanprash' in Ads, But Orders Deletion of '40 Herbs' Reference

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday, September 23, 2025, disposed of an appeal filed by Patanjali Ayurveda against a single-judge order restraining it from airing advertisements allegedly disparaging Dabur’s Chyawanprash.

A Division Bench of Justices C. Hari Shankar and Om Prakash Shukla examined Patanjali’s advertisement carrying the line, “Why settle for ordinary Chyawanprash made with 40 herbs?” The Court ruled that Patanjali can use the phrase “Why settle for ordinary Chyawanprash” but directed it to delete the “made with 40 herbs” reference, noting it was a clear allusion to Dabur, which markets its product as containing 40 herbs.

Appearing for Patanjali, Senior Advocate Rajiv Nayyar submitted, “I will drop the challenge, my Lords, but would like to retain the word ‘ordinary.’”

On this point, the Bench observed, “Using the word ‘ordinary’ is not per se disparagement, because everyone has the right to say mine is the best and the rest of the world is ordinary. So long as it does not disparage, it is permissible.”

For Dabur, Senior Advocate Sandeep Sethi opposed the proposal, arguing that since Chyawanprash falls under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, a product compliant with statutory standards cannot be described as “ordinary.”

The Court, however, remarked,“Let’s be realistic, we are dealing with chyawanprash, not with drugs. He (Patanjali) is trying to say: look, my chyawanprash is very good and better than others. To say that is disparagement may be stretching the concept of disparagement.”

It further explained that advertising law permits comparative advertising. A company may project its product as superior, even suggesting rivals are less effective, so long as there is no outright disparagement. “Saying ‘I am the best and others are not as good as me’ is permissible,” the Court added.

Accordingly, the Court allowed Patanjali to continue using the word “ordinary” but upheld the remaining aspects of the single judge’s order. The appeal was disposed of with this modification.

In July 2025, the High Court had issued an interim direction restraining Patanjali Ayurved from continuing with advertisements allegedly disparaging Dabur’s Chyawanprash. The order was passed by Justice Mini Pushkarna while hearing interim applications filed by Dabur India Limited, which claimed that Patanjali’s advertisements were disparaging its Chyawanprash product. “The application is allowed,” Justice Mini Pushkarna said.

Patanjali subsequently approached the Division Bench on September 19, 2025. During th hearings, the Bench orally observed that Patanjali’s statements were an “obvious reference” to Dabur. The judges also cautioned that if the appeal appeared to be luxury litigation or frivolous, costs could be imposed on the company.

The Division Bench further noted that the single judge had already treated the advertisements as disparaging and issued an interim order, leaving no compelling reason for interference. Senior Advocate Jayant Mehta, for Patanjali, then sought time to consult with Dabur, following which the matter was posted for September 23.

The dispute stems from a television commercial featuring Baba Ramdev, in which he claimed only Patanjali’s Chyawanprash was the “original,” while suggesting that other brands lacked the Ayurvedic and Vedic knowledge to make a genuine version.

Dabur India Ltd., on the other hand, argued that it holds more than 60% of the Chyawanprash market, and said that labeling competitors’ products as “ordinary” undermined the entire category of Ayurvedic Chyawanprash. Dabur further alleged that despite a summons issued in December, Patanjali continued to broadcast over 6,182 advertisements, which also misleadingly claimed the use of 51 herbs, though only 47 were actually used.

Patanjali, on its part, maintained that its formulations adhered to prescribed standards and were fit for human consumption.

Case Title: Patanjali Ayurved v. Dabur India Limited

Bench: Justice C Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla.

Hearing Date: 23 September 2025