Introduction:
In a heated courtroom exchange that brought India’s two Ayurvedic giants face to face once again, the Delhi High Court recently reserved its order in a case that reignited the debate over misleading advertisements, brand rivalry, and consumer perception. The case — Patanjali Ayurved Limited & Anr v. Dabur India Limited — revolved around a 25-second television commercial by Patanjali titled “51 Herbs. 1 Truth. Patanjali Chyawanprash!” The advertisement sparked legal controversy when Dabur India, one of the oldest and most trusted names in Ayurveda, moved the court seeking an injunction, alleging that the commercial called all other Chyawanprash products, including Dabur’s, “dhoka” — a term that translates to fraud or deception.
In the ad, a woman is seen feeding Chyawanprash to her child while saying “Chalo dhoka khao” (Come, have some fraud). Following this, Baba Ramdev, the face of Patanjali, states, “Adhikansh log Chyawanprash ke naam par dhoka kha rahe hain” (Most people are being deceived in the name of Chyawanprash). The ad ends by emphasizing that only Patanjali’s Chyawanprash, made with 51 herbs, represents the “truth.” This aggressive marketing message, Dabur claimed, crossed the fine line between comparative advertising and product disparagement, violating the principle of fair competition and damaging the reputation of rival brands.
Arguments on behalf of Dabur India:
Senior Advocate Sandeep Sethi, appearing for Dabur, launched a scathing critique of the advertisement, calling it “ex facie disparaging.” He contended that Patanjali’s ad directly implied that all Chyawanprash products other than its own were fraudulent or fake. Since Dabur holds more than 60% of the Chyawanprash market, such statements, Sethi argued, were clearly aimed at undermining consumer trust in Dabur’s long-established brand. He highlighted that Chyawanprash is not a random consumer product but an Ayurvedic medicine governed under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, which specifies the formulation and ingredients as per classical Ayurvedic scriptures like Charaka and Sushruta Samhitas.
Sethi emphasized that every licensed manufacturer of Chyawanprash must strictly adhere to these formulations and obtain due approval from regulatory authorities. Thus, suggesting that others were committing “dhoka” was an attack not only on Dabur but on the entire category of compliant manufacturers. “By saying ‘chalo dhoka khao’ and ‘adhikansh log Chyawanprash ke naam par dhoka kha rahe hain,’ Patanjali has essentially accused an entire class of honest Ayurvedic manufacturers of deceit,” he said.
He went on to argue that Patanjali’s conduct was not an isolated incident but part of a pattern of misleading comparative advertising designed to demean competitors and manipulate consumer sentiment. He asserted that Patanjali’s language carried an undercurrent of moral superiority — invoking the persona of a yoga guru and spiritual teacher — which gave the advertisement a heightened influence over the public. “Coming from a self-proclaimed yoga guru, this is far more serious. People associate yoga and Ayurveda with truthfulness, and this advertisement exploits that trust,” Sethi added.
He also pointed out the advertisement’s enormous reach — with over 9 crore views in less than a week — which amplified the harm caused by the disparaging language. He urged the Court to recognize that Patanjali’s use of “dhoka” was not mere puffery or exaggeration, but a false and malicious claim that painted all competitors, particularly Dabur, as dishonest. Sethi concluded that if Patanjali wanted to criticize a specific product, it should have named that company directly instead of maligning the entire market segment.
Arguments on behalf of Patanjali Ayurved:
Senior Advocate Rajiv Nayar, representing Patanjali Ayurved, countered that the advertisement did not target any specific competitor and was simply a form of permissible puffery — an accepted marketing practice where a company claims that its product is the best without making objectively false claims about others. Nayar stated that the term “dhoka” was used metaphorically, not literally, to convey that Patanjali’s Chyawanprash was more authentic and beneficial compared to others that were merely ordinary or less effective.
“The expression ‘dhoka’ in this context signifies that other products do not offer the same efficacy or adherence to Ayurvedic purity as ours. It doesn’t mean they are fake or spurious,” Nayar argued. He clarified that Patanjali was asserting superiority — a legitimate form of competitive advertising — and not disparagement. He emphasized that advertisers are allowed to claim that their product is the best, as long as they don’t make false factual allegations about others.
Nayar further submitted that Dabur’s petition was an attempt to reopen issues already decided in previous litigation over similar advertisements. “This is not a case of fresh defamation or new falsehoods — it’s a continuation of the same debate,” he contended, pointing to earlier court rulings where Patanjali was directed to modify but not completely withdraw its advertisements. He insisted that Dabur was seeking to stifle healthy market competition and consumer choice under the guise of protecting its reputation.
To support his argument, Nayar relied on precedents that distinguish comparative advertising (which allows claims of superiority) from disparaging advertising (which defames competitors). He asserted that Patanjali’s advertisement fell squarely in the former category, emphasizing performance and uniqueness rather than making false accusations. “We are not saying others are frauds — only that they are less authentic in comparison. Inferior, not fake,” he said.
Court’s Observations:
Justice Tejas Karia, presiding over the matter, engaged both sides in a sharp exchange, probing the distinction between assertive marketing and defamatory advertising. He observed that while calling other products “ordinary” or “inferior” could be permissible puffery, labeling them “dhoka” — which directly translates to “fraud” — carries a negative and defamatory connotation.
The Court noted, “Ordinary or special and ‘dhoka’ are different. You are calling all other Chyawanprash, except yours, a fraud. ‘Dhoka’ is a negative word — it implies deception. You can claim that yours is superior, but calling others deceitful crosses a boundary.”
Justice Karia also remarked that the way a message is expressed matters as much as its content. “You can say your product is better or more effective — that’s allowed. But when you use terms like ‘dhoka,’ you are no longer comparing; you are accusing,” he observed. The judge suggested that while exaggeration in advertisements is tolerable, vilification is not. “You can call someone ordinary, but not a fraud. Inferior and fraudulent are two very different concepts,” he said.
The Court further hinted that Patanjali’s approach may have blurred the line between marketing puffery and consumer deception, especially given the cultural and moral authority of its brand ambassadors. Justice Karia questioned whether such language, coming from figures associated with yoga and spirituality, could mislead consumers into believing that other Ayurvedic companies were dishonest.
Referring to Patanjali’s earlier litigation history, the judge recalled that the Single Judge Bench had previously directed Patanjali to delete specific lines from a similar advertisement, such as “Why settle for ordinary Chyawanprash made with 40 herbs?” and “Those without knowledge of Ayurveda and Vedas cannot make the original Chyawanprash.” That order was later modified by a Division Bench, which instructed Patanjali to merely remove references to “40 herbs” — an acknowledgment that comparative ads are acceptable only when they stay factual and non-defamatory.
In light of these precedents and the sensitivities involved in Ayurvedic advertising, Justice Karia noted that the present case was a “borderline instance” where Patanjali may have crossed the line between permissible promotion and disparagement. “You can emphasize your product’s strengths, but not by branding everyone else as deceitful,” the Court remarked, before reserving the order on Dabur’s plea for interim injunction.
Judgment and Implications:
Though the final order has been reserved, the Court’s remarks indicate a strong inclination toward protecting the balance between commercial free speech and consumer protection. The case underscores the judiciary’s evolving stance that advertisements must be judged not just by literal meaning but by consumer perception, context, and the moral influence of the messenger.
This case, involving two of India’s largest Ayurvedic brands, has broader implications for advertising ethics, corporate accountability, and brand rivalry in India’s booming wellness industry. It reinforces that companies, particularly those claiming cultural and spiritual authority, bear a higher duty of responsibility when influencing consumer behavior.
If the Court eventually rules against Patanjali, it could reaffirm that “creative puffery” has limits — especially when it borders on defamatory generalizations that mislead consumers and tarnish the credibility of entire industries. Conversely, if Patanjali prevails, it could strengthen the right of brands to assert their superiority under the shield of comparative marketing, provided they refrain from explicit falsehoods.
Either way, the verdict is expected to serve as a significant precedent on how language, tone, and moral positioning in advertisements can influence judicial interpretation in cases of alleged disparagement.