Delhi HC Disposes Suit Against Baba Ramdev Over “Sharbat Jihad” Remark
The Delhi High Court, on May 9, 2025, disposed of a defamation suit filed by the Hamdard National Foundation against Yoga Guru Baba Ramdev and Patanjali Foods. The suit pertained to Ramdev's controversial remarks in a video where he referred to Hamdard’s flagship product, Rooh Afza, as part of a so-called “Sharbat Jihad”.
The bench of Justice Amit Bansal took note of an affidavit filed on behalf of the defendants. The affidavit assured the court that the contentious video had been taken down in compliance with the court’s earlier directions. On this basis, the court disposed of the petition.
In earlier proceedings, the Foundation had expressed concern that the video, although no longer publicly accessible, had merely been made private rather than permanently removed. The court, while acknowledging this point and insisted on complete compliance with its directive as soon as possible.
The dispute arose from a video uploaded on April 3, 2025, in which Baba Ramdev claimed that purchasing Rooh Afza indirectly funded the construction of mosques and madrasas. He contrasted this with the consumption of Patanjali’s rose sharbat, asserting that the proceeds from Patanjali products contributed to gurukuls, Acharyakulam, Patanjali University, and the Bharatiya Shiksha Board. In the same video, Ramdev invoked terms like “love jihad” and “vote jihad”, and coined the phrase “sharbat jihad” to caution viewers against purchasing products from rival companies, particularly Hamdard.
At a prior hearing on May 1, 2025, the bench made it clear that the court’s concern lay not with Baba Ramdev’s ideological or political beliefs, but with the legal implications of his speech in the commercial domain. Justice Bansal observed, “He lives in his own world,” in reference to Ramdev’s assertions, and reiterated that the court was only focused on ensuring lawful conduct in advertising and public communication.
The bench underscored that while individuals are free to hold and express personal opinions, the same freedom does not extend unconditionally to commercial speech, especially when it involves disparagement of competing products. Justice Bansal warned that the propagation of divisive narratives under the guise of brand promotion could invite further legal consequences.
The court also took note of similar remarks made by Ramdev against other consumer brands, including Dabur, suggesting a pattern of conduct that, if unchecked, might compel other companies to approach the judiciary for protection against defamatory and misleading claims.
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)