Delhi HC Bars Patanjali from Airing Ad Calling Other Chyawanprash ‘Dhoka’

The Delhi High Court has recently restrained Patanjali Ayurved Ltd. from airing its advertisement that allegedly referred to all other chyawanprash products as “dhoka” (deception).

A bench presided over by Justice Tejas Karia directed Patanjali to take down or disable the impugned advertisement from all electronic and digital platforms, including national television channels, OTT and streaming platforms, social media, and print media, within 72 hours of receiving the order.

The Court passed the order while dealing with a plea filed by Dabur India Ltd., seeking a permanent and mandatory injunction and damages against Patanjali for denigration, disparagement, defamation, and unfair competition.

Dabur alleged that Patanjali had produced and aired an advertisement on Star Plus, in which chyawanprash was referred to as “dhoka.” The advertisement allegedly began with a voiceover saying: “Chalo... dhoka khao! Adhikansh log chyawanprash ke naam par dhoka kha rahe hain,” implying that most consumers were being deceived into consuming fake or inferior products under the name of chyawanprash. Dabur argued that the commercial crossed the threshold of fair comparison and amounted to defamation of an entire product category.

Patanjali argued that the suit was malafide, claiming that commercial advertising is a facet of free speech protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. It submitted that the advertisement merely extolled its own product, amounting to permissible puffery and hyperbole rather than defamation.

After examining the commercial, the Court observed that the advertisement, featuring Baba Ramdev, a well-known authority on yoga and Vedic practices, was likely to leave a strong impression on the average viewer. “Such a statement would naturally lead viewers to accept it as true and disregard other brands of chyawanprash,” Justice Karia said. “Both in its tone and underlying intent, the impugned advertisement seeks to disparage the entire category of chyawanprash products.”

Finding that Dabur had made out a prima facie case for interim relief, the Court held that the balance of convenience was in Dabur’s favour and that irreparable harm would be caused to its reputation if the advertisement continued to air.

“A false advertisement campaign would cause irreparable loss to the plaintiff, while stopping the broadcast may not have any material effect on the defendants,” the Court observed.

The Court clarified that while comparative advertising is legally permissible, it cannot extend to disparaging a competitor’s product.“An advertiser may highlight that a particular aspect or quality of its product is superior to that of a rival, provided the overall message is not misleading,” the Court said, adding that if an advertisement becomes “false, misleading, unfair, or deceptive,” it loses the protection of Article 19(1)(a).

“The freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a) does not confer any right to defame, disparage, or denigrate a competitor,” the order stated.

The matter will next be heard on February 26, 2026.

For Plaintiff: Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Senior Advocate along with Mr. R. Jawahar Lal, Mr. Anirudh Bakhru, Ms. Meghna Kumar and Mr. Krisna Gambhir, Advocates.

For Defendants: Mr. Rajiv Nayar, Senior Advocate, Mr. Jayant Mehta, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Rahul Sahay, Mr. Rishabh Pant, Ms. Neha Gupta, Mr. Abhijeet Kr. Pandey, Ms. Osheen Verna and Mr. Pratham Arora, Advocates for Defendant Nos.1 & 2.

Case Title: Dabur India Limited v. Patanjali Ayurved Limited & Anr.

Bench: Justice Tejas Karia

Order Date: 11 November 2025