New Delhi, April 22, 2025 — The Delhi High Court has taken a stern stance against yoga guru Baba Ramdev for his controversial “sharbat jihad” remark, which was seen as a communal attack on the popular beverage Rooh Afza, manufactured by Hamdard Laboratories. The court, while hearing a defamation plea filed by Hamdard, expressed its dismay at Ramdev’s statements, calling them “shocking” and “indefensible.”
The controversy stemmed from a promotional video released by Patanjali Ayurved, in which Ramdev was seen promoting a rose sharbat under Patanjali’s brand. In the video, Ramdev contrasted his company’s product with others available in the market, claiming that buying certain sharbats helps fund madrasas and the construction of mosques. Conversely, he said that purchasing Patanjali products supports gurukuls and organizations upholding Sanatan Dharma.
Hamdard Laboratories, which has been manufacturing Rooh Afza for decades, filed a defamation suit in the Delhi High Court. Represented by senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, the company accused Ramdev and Patanjali of spreading hate speech and deliberately trying to tarnish its brand through religious polarization. Rohatgi argued that the remarks went beyond commercial rivalry and entered the realm of communal provocation.
During the proceedings, Justice Amit Bansal remarked that the statements made by Ramdev were not only uncalled for but also deeply disturbing in a secular country like India. He stated, “Such comments shock the conscience of the court,” underlining the potential of such divisive language to disrupt communal harmony.
Although Ramdev’s counsel claimed that no specific product or community was named, the court observed that the innuendos were unmistakable and damaging. Justice Bansal indicated that public figures must exercise caution in their speech, especially when their influence extends to millions of followers.
The case has stirred a nationwide debate on responsible advertising and the ethical boundaries that must be maintained by brands and their spokespersons. The court’s strong reaction is being seen as a reminder that communal remarks disguised as marketing strategies will not be tolerated.
This legal intervention comes at a time when communal rhetoric in advertising and public discourse is under increased scrutiny. Many legal experts have welcomed the court’s approach, emphasizing that such remarks, if left unchecked, can set dangerous precedents in a pluralistic society.
The Delhi High Court has directed Ramdev and Patanjali Ayurved to file a detailed response and has scheduled the next hearing for later this month. The matter continues to attract widespread attention as it touches on key issues involving freedom of expression, commercial competition, and the responsibility of public figures.
