Read Time: 05 minutes
Baba Ramdev made the following allegations in his video: "But if you drink that sharbat, it supports the construction of mosques and madrasas. On the other hand, if you drink Patanjali’s rose sharbat, it supports the setting up of gurukuls, Acharyakulam, Patanjali University, and the Bharatiya Shiksha Board. That’s why I say, just like there is love jihad and vote jihad, there is also sharbat jihad. So, you must protect yourself from this sharbat jihad".
The Delhi High Court, while hearing a defamation suit initiated by Hamdard National Foundation, strongly condemned Baba Ramdev for his controversial statements referring to Rooh Afza as “Sharbat Jihad”. The bench, led by Justice Amit Bansal, observed that although Ramdev has the liberty to hold personal views, he must keep them “only in his head” and refrain from making such statements in public.
The controversy stemmed from statements made by Ramdev on April 3, wherein he criticised Hamdard’s Rooh Afza, alleging that the company was utilising its earnings to finance the construction of mosques and madrasas.
A video capturing these comments was circulated through the Facebook page ‘Patanjali Products.’ The caption, originally in Hindi, when translated into English, called upon people to shield their families and children from what was described as “toilet cleaner” being marketed as ‘sharbat jihad’ and cold beverages. It encouraged consumers to opt for Patanjali’s sharbat and juices instead.
Ramdev in that video further claimed that one company—implicitly referring to Hamdard—was selling sharbat, and the profits from those sales were being used to fund the construction of mosques and madrasas. He acknowledged this as a matter of religious practice but contrasted it with Patanjali’s rose sharbat, which, according to him, supported gurukuls, Acharyakulam, Patanjali University, and the Bharatiya Shiksha Board.
Appearing for Hamdard, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi argued that Ramdev’s statements amounted to more than just commercial defamation. He described the issue as alarming and asserted that it fostered communal tension. Rohatgi equated the remarks to hate speech and contended that linking Rooh Afza to the concept of “jihad” constituted a targeted religious slur.
On the other side, Senior Advocate Rajiv Nayar, representing Ramdev, informed the court that the contentious video would be withdrawn. He also confirmed that all associated advertising content—both print and digital—would be removed by Ramdev and Patanjali.
Although the court acknowledged Ramdev’s freedom to hold individual opinions, it expressed concern over the harmful effects of publicising such divisive narratives. The bench also took note of similar remarks made about other brands like Dabur and cautioned against compelling more companies to seek judicial intervention in the future.
Case Title: Hamdard National Foundation India v Patanjali Foods Limited[Inputs: Hindustan Times]
Please Login or Register
