Delhi High Court Warns Ramdev Of Contempt For His Repeated ‘Sharbat Jihad’ Comments

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday heard a defamation suit filed by the Hamdard National Foundation against yoga guru Baba Ramdev for referring to their iconic product Rooh Afza as “Sharbat Jihad” in a widely circulated video. The court expressed concern over repeated instances of disparaging statements and cautioned that further violations could lead to contempt proceedings.

The bench of Justice Amit Bansal clarified that the court was not concerned with Ramdev’s political or ideological views, but only with ensuring compliance with the law. “He lives in his own world”, the judge remarked, noting that the issue at hand was the continued disparagement of Hamdard’s product despite earlier warnings.

The controversy began with a video posted on April 3 via the Facebook page ‘Patanjali Products’, where Ramdev urged people to avoid consuming Rooh Afza, claiming that profits from its sales were used to construct mosques and madrasas.

In contrast, he claimed that the consumption of Patanjali’s rose sharbat supported institutions like gurukuls, Acharyakulam, Patanjali University, and the Bharatiya Shiksha Board. “Just like there is love jihad and vote jihad, there is also sharbat jihad”, he declared in the video, further warning viewers to protect their families from this so-called “sharbat jihad”.

The video, captioned in Hindi and later translated into English, likened Rooh Afza to a “toilet cleaner” and called upon consumers to reject it in favor of Patanjali’s products. The remarks triggered widespread backlash, leading Hamdard to approach the court.

Senior Advocate Rajiv Nayar, appearing for Ramdev, referred to an affidavit where Ramdev claimed, “I don’t distinguish between religions”. However, when asked about future conduct, Senior Advocate Nayar submitted that a blanket gag order was not legally sustainable. He conceded that while future references to Hamdard could not be entirely ruled out, no disparaging remarks would be made.

Senior Advocate Sandeep Sethi, representing Hamdard, urged the court to compare the original video with a newly released one, arguing that both were strikingly similar in tone and content. He submitted that the newer video reiterated the same communal insinuations and thus violated the court’s earlier observations.

In response, Senior Advocate Nayar maintained that the latest video did not amount to defamation and claimed that the prior court order had already been complied with. He argued that the fresh video was unrelated to the present proceedings.

However, the court observed that the tone and tenor of the newer video mirrored the earlier one. Justice Bansal warned that if such conduct continued, contempt proceedings might follow. The court took note of the injunction application seeking the removal of the video from all platforms and issued notice accordingly.

The court recorded that the temporary injunction plea sought the removal of the video from YouTube and other social media platforms. The defendants assured the court that all references to Hamdard’s product would be taken down within 24 hours. The court directed the filing of an affidavit of compliance and listed the matter for further hearing the following day.

Earlier in the case, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, also representing Hamdard, described Ramdev’s remarks as far more serious than commercial disparagement, terming them as communal and inflammatory. He contended that likening Rooh Afza to “jihad” constituted hate speech, fostering division and targeting a religious identity under the guise of consumer choice.

While the bench acknowledged Ramdev’s freedom to hold personal views, it cautioned against propagating divisive narratives under the garb of commercial speech. It also noted similar comments made by Ramdev about other brands like Dabur, warning that such conduct could compel more companies to seek judicial redress if left unchecked.

For Hamdard: Senior Advocates Mukul Rohatgi and Sandeep Sethi with Advocates Pravin Anand, Dhruv Anand, Nikhil Rohatgi, Udita Patro, Shivendra Pratap Singh, Dhananjay Khanna, Nimrat Singh, Navdeep Suhag, Mehak Khanna, Ria Kumar, Javed Akhter and Aslam Khan

For Patanjali: Senior Advocate Rajiv Nayar with Advocates Rahul Sahay, Simaranjeet Singh, Rishabh Pant, Abhijit Pandey, Yajat Gulia and Pratham Arora

Case Title: Hamdard National Foundation India v Patanjali Foods Limited (CS(COMM) 356/2025)