Patanjali moves appellate bench over Delhi HC ruling on Dabur Chyawanprash ad row

New Delhi: Patanjali Ayurved, led by yoga guru Ramdev, has filed an appeal in the Delhi High Court’s Commercial Appellate Division, challenging a July 3, 2025, single-judge order that restrained the company from airing advertisements deemed disparaging to Dabur’s Chyawanprash. 

The appeal, set to be heard on Friday before a division bench of Justices C Hari Shankar and Om Prakash Shukla, contests the directive to remove specific lines from Patanjali’s print and TV ads, which the court found misleading and damaging to competitors.

The controversy stems from a lawsuit filed by Dabur India in December 2024, alleging that Patanjali’s “Special Chyawanprash” campaign unfairly targeted its market-leading product, which holds a 61.6% share in the chyawanprash segment. 

The single-judge bench, presided over by Justice Mini Pushkarna, issued an interim injunction, citing a “clear case of disparagement.” The court ordered Patanjali to delete phrases like “Why settle for ordinary Chyawanprash made with 40 herbs?” and a Hindi line implying that only those with knowledge of Ayurveda and Vedic traditions, as embodied by sages like Charak and Sushrut, could produce “original” chyawanprash. 

Another line, “Toh ordinary chyawanprash kyu?” (“Why choose ordinary chyawanprash?”), was also mandated for removal. The ads, narrated by Ramdev himself, were allowed to run only after these modifications.

Dabur argued that Patanjali’s campaign, aired approximately 900 times over three days on major networks like Colors, Star, Zee, Sony, News 18, and Aaj Tak, and published in the Delhi edition of Dainik Jagran, not only disparaged its product but also misled consumers by suggesting competitors’ chyawanprash was inferior or unsafe. 

Senior Advocate Akhil Sibal, representing Dabur, emphasised that all chyawanprash products must adhere to formulations in ancient Ayurvedic texts under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, rendering Patanjali’s claims of exclusive authenticity false.

In its appeal, Patanjali, represented by its legal team, argued that the ads did not directly reference Dabur and were merely “puffery” or fair comparative advertising, praising its own product’s 51-herb formulation without denigrating others. The company defended the term “ordinary” as neutral and judicially recognised as non-pejorative, asserting that the single-judge order misapplied principles of commercial speech. Patanjali further contended that the court’s ruling overlooked the lack of evidence showing harm to Dabur’s market position or consumer perception, and that its market dominance alone should not infer disparagement.

The July order highlighted Ramdev’s role as a prominent yoga and Vedic expert, noting that his personal endorsement lent undue weight to the claims, creating a misleading impression that only Patanjali’s product adhered to traditional standards. Justice Pushkarna clarified that no specialised Ayurvedic knowledge is required to manufacture chyawanprash, debunking Patanjali’s narrative. This ruling aligns with India’s legal framework under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, which prohibit misleading ads and unfair trade practices, as well as guidelines from the Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI).