HC raps up Ramdev over 'Sharbat-Jihad' remarks against Rooh Afza

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday came down heavily on Baba Ramdev for his controversial remarks indirectly targeting Rooh Afza and branding them as part of a so-called “sharbat jihad.” The court described his statements as “indefensible” and said they “shock the conscience of the court.” The observations were made during the hearing of a petition filed by Hamdard Laboratories, the makers of Rooh Afza, seeking action against Ramdev and the Patanjali group for alleged hate speech and disparagement.

Baba Ramdev made the comments earlier this month at the launch of Patanjali's rose sharbat. Without explicitly naming Hamdard or Rooh Afza, he said, “There’s a company that gives you sharbat, but the money it earns is used to construct madrasas and mosques.” He contrasted this with Patanjali’s offering, claiming, “If you drink this, gurukuls will be built, Patanjali University will expand, and Bharatiya Shiksha Board will grow.”

He further added, “Just like there is love jihad, this is a kind of sharbat jihad,” urging people to “protect themselves” by choosing Patanjali products. These comments triggered widespread criticism and led Hamdard to file a legal plea against the Patanjali founder.

Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for Hamdard, argued that the case was not just about product defamation but one that “goes beyond disparagement” and promotes communal disharmony. “This is a case of creating a communal divide, akin to hate speech. It will not have protection from the law of defamation,” Rohatgi stated in court.

The Patanjali brand, through its social media campaigns, further aggravated the matter by urging people to “protect their families from the poison of toilet cleaners being sold as soft drinks” and to choose Patanjali sharbat instead. The use of terms like “toilet cleaner” and “sharbat jihad” was cited as inflammatory and misleading by Hamdard’s legal team.

Following the court’s stern observations, Baba Ramdev’s lawyer informed the bench that all the videos and promotional content related to the controversial remarks would be taken down. The court is expected to continue hearing the matter, which now also raises questions about the limits of commercial competition and communal harmony in public discourse.