Reckitt Benckiser India, the maker of Dettol antiseptic liquid, has approached the Delhi High Court alleging that dermatologist Dr. Manjot Marwah and influencers Raj Shamani and Ritik Chaturvedi made misleading and damaging statements about its product in a recent podcast and social media posts. According to media reports, the company claims the statements, which describe Dettol as a floor cleaner unfit for use on skin, are “false, disparaging and defamatory.” The comments appeared in a podcast titled “Skin Mistakes You Didn’t Know! Tanning & Sunburn EXPOSED”, published on 1 April, followed by an Instagram reel posted on 5 April, captioned “Never Use Dettol on Your Skin.”
The matter was mentioned for urgent hearing and came up before Justice Saurabh Banerjee on Monday. Despite hearing arguments for nearly an hour from senior advocate Chander M Lall, appearing for Reckitt, the court declined to grant interim relief. The case has now been scheduled for further hearing at 12:30 PM on Tuesday.
In court, Reckitt argued that Dettol has been marketed and licensed in India as an antiseptic liquid since 1936, and falls within the definition of “drug” under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. The company took strong objection to the characterisation of the product as a surface disinfectant, saying such remarks mislead consumers and damage the brand’s reputation.
Dr. Marwah, who reportedly referred to a report from the Philippines FDA to justify her claims, has a following of over 783,000 on Instagram. Reckitt countered that Dettol is not sold by its affiliate in the Philippines, and the referenced report has no relevance in India. Lall, representing the company, said the social media content is already widely circulated and continues to garner traction. The podcast segment was allegedly viewed over 2.3 lakh times, and the Instagram reel has clocked over 2.4 million views. He argued that even temporary exposure to such content causes lasting damage. “The content promotes an inaccurate narrative and potentially benefits competing products,” Lall submitted, citing references made to rival antiseptics like Betadine.
However, the court appeared unconvinced that the statements amounted to legal disparagement, noting that the dermatologist was expressing a professional opinion. “This appears to be an interpretation by a qualified expert,” Justice Banerjee remarked, as he deferred the matter to the next day and assured that a decision on interim relief would be taken.