Has the Delhi HC Closed the Suit Against Ramdev and Patanjali?

Click to start listening
Has the Delhi HC Closed the Suit Against Ramdev and Patanjali?

Synopsis

The Delhi High Court has brought an end to a lawsuit from Hamdard, concerning Baba Ramdev's controversial videos linking Rooh Afza with 'Sharbat Jihad'. The court's decision comes after Ramdev's assurance to remove the objectionable content, highlighting ongoing tensions in the realm of public health and communal sensitivities.

Key Takeaways

  • The Delhi HC closed the lawsuit against Ramdev.
  • Controversial videos linking Rooh Afza with 'Sharbat Jihad' were removed.
  • Justice Amit Bansal highlighted the significance of responsible communication.
  • Ramdev's prior actions led to court reprimands.
  • Public figures must be cautious of their statements.

New Delhi, May 9 (NationPress) The Delhi High Court has officially concluded a lawsuit initiated by the pharmaceutical and food giant Hamdard, which sought to eliminate the controversial videos from Baba Ramdev, the founder of Patanjali, that allegedly connected the company's famous beverage Rooh Afza with 'Sharbat Jihad'.

Justice Amit Bansal, presiding over a single-judge Bench, acknowledged the affidavit submitted by Yoga guru Ramdev and Patanjali, confirming that the contentious videos have been removed from all social media channels.

Just last week, Justice Bansal criticized Ramdev after learning that he had released another objectionable video against Hamdard, despite his prior promise to refrain from making such statements, advertisements, and social media posts in the future.

Indicating that the latest video was arguably contemptuous, the Delhi High Court hinted at the issuance of a contempt notice to Ramdev and summoned him to appear. In anticipation of an unfavorable ruling, Ramdev's legal counsel agreed to delete the contentious portions within 24 hours across all social media platforms.

While endorsing Patanjali's 'Gulab Sharbat', Ramdev alleged that Hamdard, the parent company of Rooh Afza, was utilizing its profits to construct mosques and madrasas. He subsequently defended his remarks, asserting that he did not mention any specific brand or community.

During a prior hearing regarding Hamdard's injunction request related to an earlier video where Ramdev allegedly linked Rooh Afza with 'Sharbat Jihad', the Delhi HC had criticized the Yoga guru for employing communal slurs. "This is shocking to the court's conscience. It is indefensible," stated Justice Bansal.

After the Delhi HC indicated a strong ruling, Ramdev's counsel consented to remove the disputed video and advertisements. The court instructed Ramdev to file an affidavit confirming that he would not release such statements, advertisements, or social media posts in the future, scheduling the matter for further discussion on May 1.

Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing Hamdard, emphasized that such videos should not be permitted "even for a moment," noting that Ramdev had previously targeted the herbal health company Himalaya due to its Muslim ownership.

Rohatgi referenced the contempt proceedings initiated by the Supreme Court against Ramdev and Acharya Balakrishna, Managing Director of Patanjali Ayurved, over their continued dissemination of misleading advertisements and their criticisms of allopathy.

In August of last year, both were absolved of contempt of court charges after they offered a personal apology to the Supreme Court and published a public apology in major newspapers.

Point of View

I recognize the delicate balance between freedom of speech and responsible communication. The court's ruling underscores the importance of accountability, especially in matters that can stir communal sentiments. It is vital that public figures, like Baba Ramdev, understand the impact of their words and the responsibility that comes with their influence.
NationPress
14/05/2025

Frequently Asked Questions

What was the lawsuit about?
The lawsuit was initiated by Hamdard against Baba Ramdev and Patanjali, seeking the removal of videos that linked Rooh Afza to 'Sharbat Jihad'.
What did the Delhi High Court decide?
The Delhi High Court closed the suit after Ramdev assured that the controversial videos had been removed from social media platforms.
Who represented Hamdard in court?
Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi represented Hamdard during the legal proceedings.
What were the consequences for Ramdev?
Ramdev faced criticism from the court for his prior statements and was instructed to refrain from making similar remarks in the future.
Has Ramdev faced legal issues before?
Yes, Ramdev and Patanjali's Managing Director have previously dealt with contempt proceedings related to misleading advertisements.