Delhi High Court Criticizes Baba Ramdev’s “Sharbat Jihad” Remark in Rooh Afza Defamation Case

The Delhi High Court recently addressed a legal dispute involving Baba Ramdev's controversial "Sharbat Jihad" remark, which targeted Hamdard's Rooh Afza beverage. Justice Amit Bansal, presiding over the case, expressed strong disapproval, stating that the comment "shocks the conscience of the Court" and is "indefensible." This reaction came during a hearing on a defamation lawsuit filed by Hamdard Laboratories, which sought the removal of videos containing Ramdev's statements from social media platforms.

The controversy began when Baba Ramdev, while promoting Patanjali's rose sharbat, suggested that proceeds from Rooh Afza sales were being used to fund madrasas and mosques. He further implied that consumers should choose between supporting "Sharbat Jihad" and contributing to institutions like Gurukuls and Patanjali Vishwa Vidyalaya. Although Ramdev later defended his remarks by claiming he did not mention any specific brand or community, the implications were widely interpreted as targeting Hamdard's Rooh Afza.

Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing Hamdard, argued that Ramdev's statements went beyond mere product disparagement and amounted to hate speech by introducing a communal angle. He emphasized that such remarks could incite religious divisions and that Ramdev, given his prominence, should promote his products without maligning others. Rohatgi also referenced previous Supreme Court proceedings where Ramdev and Acharya Balkrishna were asked to issue public apologies for misleading advertisements and comments against allopathic medicine, highlighting a pattern of controversial statements.

During the hearing, a proxy counsel appeared on behalf of Ramdev, requesting a passover as the main counsel was engaged in another court. Justice Bansal insisted that the main counsel appear by 12 PM, warning that failure to do so would result in a "very strong order" from the court.

This case underscores the judiciary's stance against statements that could foster communal discord and highlights the responsibilities of public figures in maintaining social harmony. The court's firm response serves as a reminder of the importance of respectful discourse, especially when promoting products or ideologies.