The Core Dispute: 51 Herbs vs. Unverified Safety Claims
The competitive landscape of India’s health and wellness sector saw a decisive legal intervention on Thursday, July 3, as the Delhi High Court issued an interim order restraining Patanjali Ayurved, the consumer goods behemoth co-founded by yoga guru Baba Ramdev, from continuing advertisements deemed to be critical and misleading towards rival company Dabur’s Chyawanprash product.
The ruling is a significant victory for Dabur, which had approached the court claiming that Patanjali’s advertising campaign was unfairly harming its reputation and misleading consumers with unverified comparisons and veiled warnings. The injunction is effective immediately and stands until the case receives its next full hearing.
The Core Dispute: 51 Herbs vs. Unverified Safety Claims
The legal battle stems from a complaint filed by Dabur in December 2024. Dabur alleged that Patanjali’s advertisements, while not explicitly naming the company, were clearly directed at diminishing the quality and safety of their popular Chyawanprash product, an Ayurvedic staple in Indian households.
The advertisements in question employed two primary tactics to promote Patanjali’s offering:
- The Herb Count: Patanjali’s campaign heavily promoted its Chyawanprash as being more “authentic” and superior because it allegedly uses 51 herbs, directly contrasting it with the competitor’s product, which the ads claimed used only 40 herbs. Dabur contested this claim as factually inaccurate and a manipulative comparison.
- The Safety Allegation: More critically, the Patanjali advertisements dangerously hinted that Chyawanprash products from “other brands” might be unsafe for children or even contain harmful contaminants, specifically alluding to the presence of mercury. This subtle but highly damaging suggestion directly struck at the heart of public trust in established health and wellness brands.
Though Patanjali avoided mentioning Dabur by name, the market context and the nature of the claims left little doubt in Dabur’s mind that it was the target of the disparagement.
The Delhi High Court’s Ruling
Presiding over the matter, the Delhi High Court judge agreed with Dabur’s contention and issued the interim order demanding an immediate cessation of the advertisements. The court acknowledged the sensitive line separating healthy market competition from unfair trade practices.
The judge commented that the Patanjali advertisements may have significantly crossed the line from regular, vigorous product promotion into the realm of disparaging and misleading statements. Such unverified and potentially alarmist claims, particularly those concerning child safety and harmful ingredients, were viewed as an attempt to cause unfair damage to a competitor’s goodwill and reputation.
Until the matter can be heard in greater detail, Patanjali is strictly barred from showing any advertisements that can be construed as putting down Dabur’s Chyawanprash or that make unverified claims about the presence of mercury or other contaminants in competing products.
Patanjali’s Defence and Legal History
Patanjali Ayurved, in its defence, argued that it had been careful not to name Dabur directly and maintained that the advertising campaign was purely intended to promote the superior qualities of its own product. The company asserted that it had followed proper advertising guidelines and was not attempting to damage the reputation of any specific brand in the market.
However, this current legal challenge concerning advertising integrity arrives amid a broader backdrop of intense scrutiny faced by the company and its co-founder, Baba Ramdev .
Earlier this year, the Supreme Court of India delivered a stringent warning to Ramdev and Patanjali Ayurved regarding a separate, highly contentious matter: misleading claims made against modern medicine (Allopathy). That case, which focused on Patanjali’s promotion of certain remedies as cures for chronic illnesses, culminated in the Supreme Court demanding and receiving a public apology from both Baba Ramdev and Patanjali’s Managing Director for breaching court undertakings and continuing to make misleading statements. The fact that Patanjali has a recent history of being censured for misleading advertising added considerable weight to the Delhi High Court’s decision to issue an immediate injunction in the current Dabur dispute.
Next Steps
The interim order provides immediate relief to Dabur, but the main lawsuit is still ongoing. Both parties are preparing for the next phase of arguments, with the Delhi High Court setting the date for the subsequent hearing on July 14, 2025.
Until that date, Patanjali must adhere to the court’s order, ensuring that any of its promotional content avoids making direct or indirect claims that malign or mislead consumers regarding Dabur’s product. The case underscores the rigorous legal framework surrounding competitive advertising in India, particularly for products related to public health, where the line between aggressive marketing and unlawful disparagement is closely monitored by the judiciary.
Also Read: The Winter Skin Crisis: Why Your Complexion Turns Rough, Flaky, and Itchy When the Temperatures Drop
