Patanjali Ayurved has filed an appeal in the Delhi High Court against a single-judge order that restrained it from running certain advertisements alleged to be disparaging toward Dabur’s Chyawanprash. The appeal was heard by a division bench comprising Justices C Hari Shankar and Om Prakash Shukla. Early in the hearing, the bench indicated that it saw little reason to interfere in the single-judge’s discretionary order. The Court questioned why Patanjali should “sit in appeal” over an order that involved discretionary powers, given that the single judge had applied established principles correctly. The bench remarked that Patanjali, through its advertisements, had made sweeping claims against all makers of Chyawanprash, effectively stating that others lacked the knowledge to make it properly. This generic disparagement, the Court observed, was problematic.
The Court warned that if it deemed the appeal to be without substance (what the judge termed “useless” or “luxury litigation”), costs would be imposed on Patanjali Ayurved. It emphasized that it would not allow every frivolous or “aaltu-faultu” (insignificant) appeal to proceed. In response, Patanjali’s counsel sought time to confer with Dabur’s side and the Court listed the appeal for further hearing on a later date.
The impugned single-judge order, dated July 3, had been issued at the instance of Dabur India Limited, which had filed interim applications against Patanjali’s advertisements. The single judge had noted that Patanjali’s television commercial (TVC) portrayed Chyawanprash products in the market (other than Patanjali’s) as “ordinary” and suggested that consumers should not settle for such ordinary products because they were not prepared in accordance with Ayurvedic texts and tradition; that is, they did not conform to ancient Ayurvedic knowledge as per Charaka, Sushruta, Dhanvantri, and Chyawan Rishi’s tradition. Significantly, the narrative was deemed more powerful because the voice delivering it was that of yoga guru Baba Ramdev, a figure widely associated with Ayurvedic tradition.
Accordingly, the single judge directed Patanjali to delete certain lines from its advertisements. In the print advertisements, both in Hindi and English, Patanjali was ordered to remove the first two lines: “Why settle for ordinary Chyawanprash made with 40 herbs?” In the TVC, a line was directed to be deleted: “Jinko Ayurved or Vedon ka gyaan nahi Charak, Sushrut, Dhanvantri aur Chyawanrishi Ki Parampara ke Anuroop, original Chyawanprash kaise bana payenge.” The question before the Delhi High Court now is whether that order should be upheld in appeal.
The background indicates that Dabur had alleged that Patanjali’s ads were disparaging—making claims that undermine competitors by suggesting that only Patanjali’s product meets ancient standards while others do not. The Delhi High Court’s division bench, in hearing the appeal, made clear that the standard for such interim relief (restraining advertisements) was correctly applied by the single judge, and the burden for Patanjali was to show irreparable harm or other circumstances warranting disturbance of the interim order. The bench asked for submissions on whether there was any irreparable loss to Patanjali as a result of being restrained, but expressed skepticism.
In conclusion, the appeal is slated for further hearing. The Delhi High Court has already issued warnings that it may impose costs on Patanjali if the appeal is held to be frivolous. At present, the question remains whether Patanjali can show sufficient grounds—both legally and factually—to justify overturning the single judge’s directions to delete the impugned lines from its advertisements.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.