The Delhi High Court has directed Patanjali Ayurved to withdraw advertisements that allegedly disparage Dabur’s Chyawanprash, following a lawsuit filed by the FMCG giant, reported Bar and Bench. The interim order, issued by Justice Mini Pushkarna, came in response to ads that Dabur claims misrepresent its product and mislead consumers. The ads in question feature Patanjali’s founder, Swami Ramdev, questioning the credibility of brands that manufacture Chyawanprash without “knowledge of Ayurveda and the Vedas.”
In one of the advertisements, Ramdev is seen asking, “Jinko Ayurved aur Vedo ka gyaan nahi, Charak, Sushrut, Dhanwantari aur Chyawanrishi ke parampara mei ‘original’ Chyawanprash kaise bana payenge?” (Those who don’t understand Ayurveda or the Vedas — how can they make the ‘original’ Chyawanprash in the tradition of Charak, Sushrut, Dhanwantari, and Chyawan Rishi?)
Dabur argued that this was a direct and misleading reference to its flagship Chyawanprash, which promotes its use of “40+ herbs.” Patanjali, on the other hand, calls a 40-herb product “ordinary” in the ad, a description Dabur believes undermines its formulation and positioning in the market.
Holding over 60% of India’s Chyawanprash market, Dabur contends that Patanjali’s campaign misrepresents not only its own product but also regulatory standards around Ayurvedic formulations. The brand further alleged that the ads imply non-Patanjali products could pose health risks, which could harm public perception and trust. The court’s detailed order is yet to be made public.
This comes shortly after Ramdev’s controversial remarks about another legacy brand — Hamdard’s Rooh Afza. While promoting Patanjali’s rose-flavoured sharbat, Ramdev had claimed in a video that proceeds from “a certain company’s” product go to building mosques, while Patanjali’s would support “gurukuls.” Referring to it as “sharbat jihad,” Ramdev drew sharp criticism for communalising a consumer product.
The Delhi High Court, hearing a plea by Hamdard, said the video “shocks the conscience of the court” and directed that it be taken down immediately. Ramdev’s counsel agreed to withdraw the content and assured the court that no similar statements would be made in future.
