New Delhi — A bench of the Delhi High Court has ordered Patanjali Ayurved to pull down its television advertisement for Chyawanprash within 72 hours after finding it disparages competing brands. The decision came in response to a plea from Dabur, which claimed the ad unfairly depicted all other manufacturers of Chyawanprash as deceitful.
The interim injunction was issued on 11 November 2025 by Justice Tejas Karia and applies to all platforms including television, social media, digital channels, OTT services and print.
The court’s 37-page verdict found that Patanjali’s commercial went beyond puffery and entered the realm of false and misleading statements. The bench, presided by Tejas Karia J., noted the advertisement branded every other Chyawanprash product as “dhokha” (deception), thereby amounting to commercial disparagement of the entire category of competing goods.
The court observed that an average viewer could believe the allegations in the advertisement to be factual, increasing the risk of consumer deception.
In its ruling the court reiterated that the freedom of speech enjoyed by commercial messages under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution does not protect misrepresentations, defamation, or unfair disparagement of competitors.
Dabur, which holds more than 60 percent of the Chyawanprash market, argued that the term “dhokha” in the ad cast a negative shadow on all other manufacturers, and not only on Patanjali’s direct competitor. Patanjali defended its advertisement by claiming it simply highlighted the additional ingredients its product offered, without naming rivals. Senior lawyer Rajiv Nayyar maintained that the ad remained within the ambit of free commercial speech and used permissible exaggeration to promote its product.
However, the court reiterated that exaggeration cannot extend to blanket claims suggesting all rival products are deceptive.
Justice Karia did not accept Patanjali’s defence. The court noted that while comparative advertising is valid, it cannot extend to blanket denigration of rival products. The bench observed that the generic scapegoating of every competing Chyawanprash brand created a misleading impression and could cause reputational harm to rivals. It held that claims made in advertisements must be accurate and free of the capacity to mislead, and freedom of expression does not extend to misleading consumers or disparaging competitors indirectly.
The court cited its earlier ruling dated 23 September 2025, in which it allowed Patanjali to use non derogatory comparative terms like “ordinary” but ordered the company to remove claims attacking a competitor’s 40 herb formula. That earlier order formed relevant precedent in assessing the current advertisement.
Patanjali must withdraw the ad within 72 hours of the order. If the company fails to comply, it risks further legal consequences including possible injunctions against future advertising.
The 72 hour withdrawal requirement is binding during the tenure of the interim injunction, which is in force until the next scheduled hearing on 26 February 2026.
The order reinforces the judiciary’s stance that commercial speech remains subject to reasonable restrictions to protect consumer interests and fair competition. For companies promoting health-related goods especially, the bar is high for claims about comparative benefits and competitor practices.
(Rh/ARC/MSM)
