Delhi HC Restrains Patanjali From Disparaging Chyawanprash Ads

The Delhi High Court has issued an interim injunction restraining Patanjali Ayurved from airing advertisements that allegedly disparage Dabur’s Chyawanprash.

Justice Mini Pushkarna, presiding over the matter, ruled that Patanjali’s ads made misleading claims that could confuse consumers and tarnish Dabur’s brand reputation.

The decision comes in response to a suit filed by Dabur India Ltd, the market leader in Chyawanprash with a 61.6% share, seeking to curb what it called a deliberate smear campaign by Patanjali.

What the ads claimed

The contentious advertisements featured Baba Ramdev, co-founder of Patanjali, claiming that only Patanjali’s Chyawanprash adheres to ‘authentic’ Ayurvedic practices.

The ads implied that Dabur’s 40-herb formulation was ‘ordinary’ and lacked purity or traditional legitimacy.

Dabur challenged these assertions, citing violations of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and alleging the campaign was designed to falsely portray competing products as inferior or unsafe.

Represented by Senior Advocate Sandeep Sethi, Dabur contended that Patanjali aired more than 6,000 such ads in just one week, misleading consumers by boasting of 51-herb superiority and alleging unsafe elements like mercury in rivals’ products.

The court noted a strong prima facie case in favour of Dabur, observing that the tone and content of the ads crossed the legal threshold of comparative advertising into unlawful disparagement.

The interim order halts the campaign pending a full hearing scheduled for July 14, 2025.

Patanjali’s response

Senior Advocate Jayant Mehta, representing Patanjali, denied the accusations.

He further argued that the product formulation complies with Ayurvedic standards and the claims about herb count and ingredient purity are factual and defensible.

Patanjali plans to contest the injunction and maintain its right to comparative marketing.

This is not the first legal clash between the two FMCG giants.

In 2017, the Delhi High Court granted a similar restraining order against Patanjali, underscoring the ongoing friction over advertising ethics, regulatory compliance, and brand rivalry in India’s booming Ayurvedic and wellness sector.

The outcome of this case could establish vital precedents on comparative advertising, setting legal boundaries for marketing claims in the fast-growing FMCG space.

The next hearing is set for July 14, 2025, before a roster bench.

Dabur is seeking not only a permanent ban on the ads but also monetary damages for reputational harm.

Patanjali, meanwhile, aims to reverse the interim ban and justify its advertising practices.

Meanwhile, the final ruling could reshape the contours of advertising freedom in India’s highly competitive Ayurvedic market, balancing innovation in branding with consumer protection and truthful communication.

Also Read: Delhi High Court Grants Bail To Two Accused In Parliament Security Breach Case