Daijiworld Media Network- New Delhi
New Delhi, Apr 22: Yoga guru Ramdev found himself in hot water again, this time for a controversial remark linked to Patanjali's rose sherbet. The Delhi High Court on Monday observed that his statement suggesting a so-called ‘sherbet jihad’ was not only "indefensible", but also "shocked the conscience" of the court.
The remark, which appeared in a recent promotional video for Patanjali's rose sherbet, indirectly targeted popular drink Rooh Afza, manufactured by Hamdard. In the video, Ramdev claimed without naming any brand:
"A company uses money earned from selling sherbet to build mosques and madrasas… like love jihad and vote jihad, a sherbet jihad is also on."
Following the video, Hamdard Laboratories moved the High Court seeking the removal of the content from all social media platforms, arguing that the statement was not only defamatory but also communal in nature.
Appearing for Hamdard, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi called the statement “hate speech” and emphasized that the case was not just about brand disparagement but also about fomenting communal divisions. He stressed that a brand like Patanjali need not resort to such tactics to promote its products.
The court sternly warned of strong consequences, especially after a proxy counsel for Ramdev initially sought a passover. Justice Amit Bansal insisted on the presence of the main counsel and later, Advocate Rajiv Nayar appeared and confirmed that Ramdev would withdraw the ad.
The court directed Ramdev to file an undertaking within a week assuring that he would refrain from making such statements or publishing similar advertisements that Hamdard may find objectionable. The matter is now listed for hearing on May 1.
This is not the first time Ramdev and Patanjali have faced judicial scrutiny. The Supreme Court had previously rebuked the brand over misleading medical claims, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic, involving the controversial drug Coronil and subsequent misleading advertisements.
The latest development adds another chapter to the growing legal and public backlash against Patanjali and its founder for provocative and unsubstantiated claims.