Delhi High Court Restrains Patanjali Ayurved From Airing “Dhoka” Chyawanprash Ad; Orders Takedown Across All Platforms Within 72 Hours For Commercial Disparagement
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Delhi Single Bench of Justice Tejas Karia has restrained Patanjali Ayurved Limited from airing or circulating an advertisement that portrayed all other Chyawanprash products as “dhoka” (deception), holding that such representation amounts to commercial disparagement. The Court directed the company to take down, block, or disable the impugned advertisement within 72 hours of receiving the order from all platforms, including television, streaming services, print and digital media, and its official social media handles such as YouTube and Instagram. The injunction, granted on a plea by a rival ayurvedic manufacturer alleging denigration of its product and the entire Chyawanprash category, will remain in effect until the next hearing scheduled for February 26, 2026.
The plaintiff, Dabur India Limited, a manufacturer of Ayurvedic products including Chyawanprash, filed a suit seeking permanent and mandatory injunction, damages for denigration, disparagement, defamation, unfair competition, rendition of accounts and delivery up. The plaintiff stated that it has manufactured Chyawanprash for decades, holds a valid AYUSH licence, and has a market share of over 61%. It alleged that the defendants, Patanjali Ayurved Limited and Patanjali Foods Limited, released an advertisement on 16.10.2025 on television and social media describing most Chyawanprash available in the market as “dhoka,” and misleading consumers into believing that other manufacturers deceive the public. Screenshots and a pen drive containing the advertisement were submitted as evidence.
The plaintiff contended that the advertisement amounted to generic disparagement of the entire Chyawanprash category, which includes its product, by suggesting that other manufacturers betray consumer trust and do not provide genuine Ayurvedic benefits. The plaintiff relied on earlier proceedings between the parties wherein a Division Bench permitted use of the term “ordinary” but restrained the defendants from deriding or indirectly referring to the plaintiff’s product.
The defendants argued that the suit was mala fide and an attempt to stifle competition. They submitted that commercial speech is protected under Article 19(1)(a), that the advertisement amounted to permissible puffery, and that the word “dhoka” was used only twice. They asserted that the advertisement did not identify the plaintiff directly or indirectly and merely stated qualities of their own product. They also stated that consumer perception must be that of an average reasonable viewer and that puffery is not actionable.
The statutory framework invoked included Section 3(a) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act relating to Ayurvedic medicines. The dispute centred on whether the advertisement crossed permissible limits of comparative advertising and constituted disparagement of a class of goods in which the plaintiff is a market leader.
The Court recorded that the advertisement conveyed that “all the manufacturers of Chyawanprash, are deceiving their customers.” It observed that calling all other Chyawanprash “dhoka” amounted to commercial disparagement. It stated that although the plaintiff’s product was not directly named, “generic disparagement of all the competing products… is likely to cause harm to the Plaintiff as the Plaintiff is the market leader.”
It stated that while exaggeration regarding one’s own product is permissible, “it is not open to denigrate or disparage the goods of the others as a class in its entirety.” It recorded that comparative advertising is allowed, but “such comparison cannot extend to disparaging a competitor’s product” and that any factual representation “must be… free from the potential to mislead.”
The Court stated that Article 19(1)(a) does not protect misleading commercial speech and that “the freedom of speech… does not extend to the dissemination of falsehoods or confer any right to defame, disparage, or denigrate a competitor.” It recorded that public interest permits regulation of misleading comparative advertising under Article 19(2).
It referred to the law that an advertiser may claim superiority of its product but “cannot attribute such superiority to any defect… in the competitor’s product.” The Court noted that the defendants “have gone beyond puffery… by calling the products of all of its competitors as ‘dhoka’.” It recorded that advertisers may play in the grey area but “cannot disparage the products of its competitors.”
From the viewer’s perspective, it stated that the advertisement conveyed that “the Plaintiff’s Product, and all other Chyawanprash in the market are deceptive.” The Court observed that manufacturers producing as per statutory Ayurvedic texts “cannot be denigrated as deceptive” and that such a message was “incorrect and disparages the entire class of Chyawanprash.”
It further recorded that Baba Ramdev’s stature would likely influence consumer perception, and therefore the advertisement’s impact must be assessed with that in mind. It concluded that the defendants sought “to disparage the entire category of Chyawanprash products” and that even without direct reference, generic disparagement adversely affects the plaintiff.
The Court held that a prima facie case existed, balance of convenience favoured the plaintiff, and irreparable injury would occur if relief was not granted.
The Court directed that “till the next date of hearing, the Defendants, their, directors, proprietors, partners, associates, assigns or assignees in interest, heirs, successors or successors in interest, permitted assigns, sister concerns or group companies, distributors, dealers, wholesalers, retailers, stockiest, agents and all others acting for and on their behalf are restrained from issuing, broadcasting, or telecasting or in any manner or form, disseminating the Impugned Advertisement in any other advertisements in any media form whatsoever, including electronic media, social media and / or print media and / or dissemination in any other form, by referring to Chyawanprash as ‘dhoka’/ ‘deception’ and not having any medical value or attribute or benefit and / or in any other manner whatsoever disparaging or denigrating Chyawanprash in general, including the Plaintiff’s Product.”
“The Defendants shall take down / block / disable the Impugned Advertisement from from all electronic medium including national television channels, over the top platforms or any form of streaming system, and all other digital mediums including and print mediums and platforms on the World Wide Web / Internet, Newspapers, all of their social media accounts, including but not limited to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y09wYT9PpFo, and https://www.instagram.com/reel/DP3xH91jS5zJ/?igsb=MWFtb#2N6bWVseTgzdQ= within 72 hours of receipt of this Order.”
“Let the Reply to the present Application be filed within four weeks after service of Notice. Rejoinder thereto, if any, be filed before the next date of hearing.” It concluded by fixing the matter for further proceedings as follows: “List before this Court on 26.02.2026.”
Advocates Representing The Parties
For the Plaintiff: Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Senior Advocate; Mr. R. Jawahar Lal; Mr. Anirudh Bakhru; Ms. Meghna Kumar; Mr. Krisna Gambhir, Advocates.
For the Defendants: Mr. Rajiv Nayar, Senior Advocate; Mr. Jayant Mehta, Senior Advocate; Mr. Rahul Sahay; Mr. Rishabh Pant; Ms. Neha Gupta; Mr. Abhijeet Kr. Pandey; Ms. Osheen Verna; Mr. Pratham Arora, Advocates.
Case Title: Dabur India Limited v. Patanjali Ayurved Limited & Anr.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 1182/2025
Bench: Justice Tejas Karia
