The Calcutta High Court has set aside an ex parte injunction restraining social media influencer Arpit Mangal and his company from publishing or displaying a video concerning Emami Limited's “Zandu Ashwagandha Gold Plus”, holding that the defence of truth was prima facie available to them.

A Division Bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Justice Sandip Kumar De held that the “Bonnard principle” governing pre-trial injunctions in defamation cases is applicable in India and requires courts to exercise exceptional caution before restraining speech.

The Bench observed that the Trial Court had “completely overlooked the Bonnard standard” while granting the ad interim injunction, which was “in the nature of a gag order stifling such free speech in the larger interest of the public.”

The Court was hearing an appeal by Mangal and his company against the May 3, 2025 order of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Fourth Court at Alipore, which had restrained them from displaying or airing an allegedly disparaging video concerning Emami's product.

The appellants claimed that they had subjected the product to laboratory testing for its Withanolide content and levels of heavy metals, including lead and mercury. The tests were conducted by Eurofins Analytical Services India Pvt Ltd, which the appellants described as an FSSAI-notified, NABL- and IAS-accredited laboratory.

According to the test reports relied upon by the appellants, the product contained 0.60g of Withanolide per 100g and levels of lead and mercury exceeding the permissible limits under the Ayurvedic Pharmacopeia of India (API).

The product was subjected to a second test for heavy metals, which, according to the appellants, reaffirmed the findings of the initial report. The appellants subsequently uploaded the impugned YouTube video on March 26, 2025, after allegedly giving Emami 24 hours to respond to the test results.

Emami, however, disputed the appellants' conclusions and contended that the product was an Ayurvedic proprietary medicine and a herbo-metallic preparation manufactured under a valid drug licence. It argued that the standards relied upon by the appellants were not applicable to the product and that the laboratory reports themselves suffered from deficiencies.

The company also argued that Mangal was a social media influencer without expertise in Ayurveda and that the impugned video used disparaging expressions such as “poison in a bottle” and “cancerous”.

Bonnard principle applies in India

The High Court first considered whether the Bonnard principle applied to Indian defamation proceedings.

The Bench referred to the Supreme Court's 2025 judgment in Bloomberg Television Production Services India Pvt. Ltd. v. Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd., where the Supreme Court held that courts must exercise caution while granting pre-trial interim injunctions affecting freedom of speech.

The Calcutta HC held that the principle requires an exceptionally high threshold to be met before an interim injunction is granted in a defamation case.

It observed that an injunction, particularly an ex parte injunction, should not ordinarily be granted unless it is established that the impugned content is “malicious” or “palpably false”, and that the defence advanced by the defendant would undoubtedly fail at trial.

The Bench rejected the argument that the principle was inapplicable in India because the English decisions from which it originated concerned trials before juries.

It held: “Thus, the Bonnard principle is squarely applicable in Indian jurisprudence as per the authoritative dictum laid down in Bloomberg Television (supra), thus, a guiding light in the instant case as well.”

The Court further held that the earlier Calcutta HC decision in National Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Ashutosh Mukherjee, which had questioned the applicability of the principle in India, did not lay down the correct proposition of law and stood overruled by necessary implication following the Supreme Court's decision in Bloomberg Television.

On the merits, the Bench examined whether the appellants had applied the correct standards while testing the product.

The Court noted that Emami itself had described the product as a “formulation” in its legal notice, while its case before the Court was that the product was an Ayurvedic proprietary medicine and a herbo-metallic preparation.

The Bench held that the categories were not mutually exclusive and that a product could simultaneously fall within all three categories.

It further noted that the API prescribed permissible limits of 10 PPM for lead and 1 PPM for mercury in formulations.

The Court observed that the appellants' laboratory reports showed levels exceeding those limits and that Emami had not specifically challenged the credentials of the laboratories or the authenticity of the reports.

The Court rejected the argument that the absence of the brand name or batch number in the reports, by itself, invalidated them, observing that the appellants claimed that the samples had been anonymously submitted under pseudonyms to ensure neutrality.

Whether the samples tested were actually Emami's product, the Court said, was ultimately a factual dispute requiring a trial and could not justify an ex parte injunction at this stage.

Influencer's qualifications and ASCI guidelines

The Bench also rejected the challenge to Mangal's qualifications, noting that he claimed to be a sports science nutritionist certified from K11 School of Fitness Science and a personal trainer certified by the American Council of Exercise.

The Court noted that these credentials had been judicially recognized by the Delhi High Court in San Nutrition Private Ltd. v. Arpit Mangal.

It also held that the Advertising Standards Council of India's influencer guidelines did not automatically apply to the impugned video.

The Bench observed that the disclosure requirements under the guidelines were primarily concerned with advertisements and “material connection” between an advertiser and influencer.

In the present case, the Court found no prima facie material establishing that the video was sponsored by a competitor or another business.

It held that merely soliciting subscribers to a YouTube channel did not establish that the video was an advertisement.

'Poison in a bottle', 'Cancerous' remarks

The Bench also considered the language used in the video. It held that the expression “Poison in a bottle”, followed by question marks, could not at the present stage be treated as merely gratuitous disparagement. According to the Court, the expression was used in the context of alerting the public about the possible adverse effects of excessive lead and mercury.

Similarly, the Court held that the use of the term “Cancerous” was made in the context of the alleged carcinogenic risks associated with excessive exposure to lead and mercury.

The Bench noted that the expert reports relied upon by Emami did not dispute the quantities of lead and mercury reported by the appellants, but sought to explain their presence as residues of Swarna Bhasma and Yashad Bhasma used as ingredients.

It observed that it was not clear from the expert opinions whether those ingredients neutralised the alleged harmful effects of excessive lead and mercury.

The Court concluded: “Thus, there are sufficient prima facie materials on record to hold that the justification of defence of truth is available to the plaintiffs.”

The reference to “plaintiffs” in paragraph 83 appears to be a typographical error, as the surrounding reasoning concerns the defence available to the defendants/appellants.

The Bench ultimately held that under the Bonnard test, Emami had to demonstrate not merely a prima facie case but that the defence of truth was certain to fail at trial.

“The burden of proof is somewhat reversed inasmuch as it is for the plaintiffs to show that the defence of truth is certain to fail on trial.”

Finding that standard unmet, the Court allowed the appeal and set aside the May 3, 2025 ex parte injunction.

The Court also refused Emami's subsequent prayer to stay the operation of the judgment, observing that such a stay would effectively revive the “gag order” and deprive the public of information concerning the product.

Case Details: Arpit Mangal & Anr. v. Emami Limited & Ors., F.M.A. No. 1036 of 2025 with CAN 1 of 2025.

Click here to read order