Guwahati: The Delhi High Court on Tuesday came down heavily on Yoga Guru Baba Ramdev over his alleged communal remarks targeting Hamdard’s popular beverage Rooh Afza, referring to it as “Sharbat Jihad.”
Following the court’s strong criticism, Ramdev agreed to immediately remove all related videos from circulation.
The controversy arose after a video surfaced in which Ramdev, while introducing Patanjali’s new rose-flavored drink, indirectly referred to Rooh Afza in a communal context.
Also Read: Clamour grows to ‘slap, kick, tonsure’ Ramdev for his ‘sexist’ remarks
In the video, he claimed that while one company’s proceeds go toward building mosques, Patanjali’s earnings would support the construction of gurukuls. He also drew a parallel to the controversial term “love jihad,” dubbing the drink as part of a so-called “sharbat jihad.”
The remarks triggered a legal response from Hamdard, who approached the Delhi High Court accusing Ramdev of making hate speech and promoting communal disharmony, beyond mere product disparagement.
“This shocks the conscience of the court. It is indefensible,” said Justice Amit Bansal during the hearing.
Also Read: Ramdev again raises question over COVID19 vaccine, says he has dual cover of yoga & Ayurveda
Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing Hamdard, labeled the remarks as “shocking” and claimed they went far beyond a business rivalry. “This is not just disparagement; this borders on hate speech,” he argued.
Ramdev’s legal counsel, Senior Advocate Rajiv Nayar, responded by stating that Ramdev would take down the videos immediately. The court welcomed the move but also ordered that Ramdev file an affidavit within five days, assuring that he would refrain from making such statements, advertisements, or social media posts in the future.
Also Read: Nagaland | Terror funding case: Delhi high court rejects NSCN-IM leader’s bail plea
The judge observed, “He can hold these opinions in his head, but need not express them publicly.”
The court scheduled the next hearing for May 1 and emphasized the seriousness of the issue, especially given Ramdev’s prior run-ins with the Supreme Court for making controversial remarks, including those targeting allopathy.
The case serves as a stark reminder of the potential consequences of blending commercial competition with communal rhetoric in public discourse.