Delhi High Court Criticizes Baba Ramdev Over 'Sharbat Jihad' Remarks Against Rooh Afza

In a recent legal development, the Delhi High Court addressed a controversy involving yoga guru Baba Ramdev and his comments about Hamdard's Rooh Afza beverage. The issue arose when Ramdev, while promoting Patanjali's rose sharbat, allegedly claimed that proceeds from Rooh Afza sales were used to fund madrasas and mosques. These remarks led to Hamdard filing a lawsuit against Ramdev and Patanjali, seeking the removal of related advertisements and videos from various platforms.

During the court proceedings, Senior Advocate Rajiv Nayar, representing Ramdev and Patanjali Foods Limited, informed Justice Amit Bansal that all contentious advertisements, both in print and video formats, would be withdrawn. The court emphasized the need for this commitment to be documented formally. Consequently, Ramdev was directed to submit an affidavit within five days, assuring that he would refrain from making any future statements or releasing advertisements that could be deemed offensive by Hamdard.

The court expressed strong disapproval of Ramdev's "Sharbat Jihad" comment, describing it as shocking and indefensible. Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing Hamdard, argued that Ramdev's statements went beyond mere product disparagement and ventured into promoting communal discord. He highlighted that such remarks amounted to hate speech and were an attack on Hamdard based on religious grounds.

This incident is not isolated in Ramdev's history of controversial statements. Previously, the Supreme Court had initiated suo moto contempt proceedings against him and Acharya Balkrishna for publishing misleading advertisements and making derogatory comments about allopathic medicine, violating prior court undertakings. These actions had necessitated public apologies from both individuals.

The Delhi High Court's current directive underscores the judiciary's stance against statements that could foster communal tensions or mislead the public. By mandating the removal of the contentious content and seeking formal assurances against future infractions, the court aims to uphold communal harmony and ensure responsible communication from influential public figures.