Patanjali Chyawanprash Ad Slammed by Delhi High Court – Explosive Ruling.

Unmesh Gujarathi
Sprouts News Exclusive
Contact: +91 9322755098

The Delhi High Court has restrained Patanjali Ayurved from airing misleading ads targeting rivals like Dabur. The Court ruled that exaggerated claims about Chyawanprash products violate advertising norms for regulated drugs. Sprouts News Investigation Team (SIT) highlights how commercial speech cannot justify false efficacy claims that mislead consumers and impact public health.

In a significant ruling that tightens the legal noose around misleading health product advertisements, the Delhi High Court has pulled up Patanjali Ayurved for allegedly running deceptive and disparaging ads targeting rival Chyawanprash brands, particularly Dabur. The court underscored that stricter standards must apply to advertisements of regulated Ayurvedic drugs under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, especially when such ads affect public health and consumer choice.

Justice Mini Pushkarna, delivering the judgment in the case Dabur India Ltd vs. Patanjali Ayurved Ltd, held that regulated medicinal products cannot rely on puffery or sweeping claims of superiority disguised as “commercial speech.”

“The consumer must not be misled to believe in false efficacy or superiority of a regulated drug in the name of commercial freedom of speech,” the Court observed, warning against any distortion that could alter consumer behavior or financial decision-making.

This verdict sets a precedent for the scrutiny of advertisements involving Ayurvedic, Siddha and Unani (ASU) formulations, which are often perceived as benign but are tightly regulated due to their medical use.

The case stemmed from a Patanjali advertisement featuring Swami Ramdev, where he questioned the authenticity of other Chyawanprash manufacturers by stating:

“Jinko Ayurved aur Vedo ka gyaan nahi, Charak, Sushrut, Dhanwantari aur Chyawanrishi ke parampara mei ‘original’ Chyawanprash kaise bana payenge?”

1.Misrepresented its own product formulation,

2.Implied Dabur lacked Ayurvedic credibility,

3.Labeled Dabur’s offering as “ordinary,” undermining decades of brand trust.

Dabur’s legal counsel argued that Patanjali’s advertisement not only questioned product quality but subtly raised fears about health risks linked to consuming non-Patanjali brands. Such insinuations, Dabur contended, violated ethical advertising standards and public safety norms, especially for widely consumed health supplements like Chyawanprash.

The court took note and issued interim restraint against airing the ad. It observed that misleading ads for drugs must not be equated with toilet cleaner comparisons, emphasizing that medicinal preparations require a higher threshold of responsibility.

Justice Mini Pushkarna rejected Patanjali’s defense that its advertisement constituted harmless puffery. The Court held that branding rival Chyawanprash products as “ordinary” while elevating its own as “special” amounted to both generic and specific disparagement. This not only misled consumers but also implied a false hierarchy among regulated Ayurvedic drugs—something impermissible under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. The ruling further emphasized that any manufacturer licensed under the Act has the legal right to produce Chyawanprash, and no company can question that legitimacy based on vague or unsubstantiated superiority claims.

Sprouts News Investigation Team (SIT) concludes that this landmark decision reaffirms the need for scientific accountability, especially in the wellness and Ayurvedic sectors, where exaggerated advertising often escapes scrutiny. As India’s herbal medicine industry expands, this ruling could set a powerful precedent for ethical marketing and responsible brand communication.