Delhi High Court Closes Patanjali's Appeal In Dabur Chyawanprash Disparaging Ad Case, Asks It To Delete '40 Herbs' Reference

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday (September 23) disposed of Patanjali Ayurved's appeal against single judge's order restraining it from running advertisements allegedly disparaging to Dabur's Chyawanprash product, while directing Patanjali to remove reference to Chyawanprash "made with 40 herbs". For context, the single judge had in its July order allowed the interim applications filed by Dabur India Limited against the advertisements ran by Patanjali and directed the latter to delete the first two lines of an advertisement, i.e., "Why settle for ordinary Chyawanprash made with 40 herbs?"It had also directed Patanjali to delete from the TV commercial the line i.e., “Jinko Ayurved aur Vedo ka gyaan nahi, Charak, Sushrut, Dhanvantri aur Chyawanrishi ki parampara ke anuroop, original Chyawanprash kaise bana payenge?". Against this Patanjali approached division bench. Today, the counsel appearing for Patanjali submitted that the company will remove reference to 'Chyawanprash made with 40 herbs' but will restrict advertisement to the extent it says ordinary Chyawanprash. The counsel also said that it is not pressing against deletion of the line 'Jinko Ayurved aur Vedo ka gyaan nahi, Charak, Sushrut, Dhanvantri aur Chyawanrishi ki parampara ke anuroop, original Chyawanprash kaise bana payenge?'The counsel for Dabur said that he is agreeable to disposal of the appeal, subject to binding Patanjali to its statements. A division bench of Justice C Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla thereafter in its order dictated:"Injunction against the appellant using 'Jinko Ayurved aur Vedo ka gyaan nahi, Charak, Sushrut, Dhanvantri aur Chyawanrishi ki parampara ke anuroop, original Chyawanprash kaise bana payenge?' is upheld". With respect to "Why settle for ordinary Chyawanprash made with 40 herbs?" the court said that Patanjali will delete the words "made with 40 herbs". The court thus disposed of the appeal. During the hearing the court orally remarked that the single judge in its order had noted the fact that Dabur had advertised their Chyawanprash as one with 40 herbs."Moment you put 40 herbs it is a direct target to them (Dabur). Why should we interfere," the court remarked. On use of the word Ordinary the court further said, "Ordinary, is generally alright. But when you say 40 herbs there is a reasoning by single judge. Single judge has said that you (Patanjali) have said...ordinary vis-a-vis Chyawanprash which has 40 herbs. He (Dabur) says that they have advertised their Chyawanprash with 40 herbs and you have picked this 40 herbs". When Paranjali's counsel suggested that they will drop reference to "40 herbs" and will say why settle for ordinary Chyawanprash, the court orally said, "Now that is per say not disparaging. Everyone has right to say mine is superb and rest of the world's ordinary".Meanwhile counsel for Dabur said, "I comply with mandate of the Drugs Act...If I comply with the law I can't be ordinary. This is specially in the context of Chyawanprash it is a drug". The court thereafter remarked, "If he (Patanjali) removes then what remains. 'Why settle for ordinary' Chyawanprash remains at the highest. Per say as per law of disparagement it is highly disputable whether that can be treated as disparaging...We are dealing with Chyawanprash not a prescription drug. If someone says ordinary for a cancer drug it maybe a serious matter. But Chyawanprash is used by many people...At the end of the day the law relating to advertising has travelled leaps. Today to some extent you can even run down some one else's product, provided you don't disparage it. You can say 'I am best and others are not as good as me' is permissible because it is puffery. We don't really think that because of the word ordinary people will stop taking Dabur Chyawanprash". The single judge had in its order noted that Patanjali's TVC portrayed that the existing Chyawanprash in the market are ordinary and consumers ought not to settle for ordinary products, which are not prepared in accordance with ayurvedic knowledge as they are not manufactured as per ancient ayurvedic texts and tradition.It had added that the narrative assumed more importance coming from the mouth of a person popularly known to be an expert in the field- yoga guru Babar Ramdev.Case title: PATANJALI AYURVED LIMITED & ANR. V/s DABUR INDIA LIMITEDCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1164FAO(OS) (COMM)-140/2025

Delhi High Court Closes Patanjali's Appeal In Dabur Chyawanprash Disparaging Ad Case, Asks It To Delete '40 Herbs' Reference

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags