Delhi's High Court threatens Patanjali with financial penalties for lodging an appeal against Dabur concerning disputed Chyawanprash commercial advertisements
In a recent development, Patanjali Ayurved has filed an appeal in the Delhi High Court's Commercial Appellate Division, challenging a single-judge ruling that asked them to modify certain parts of their ads for Patanjali Special Chyawanprash. The case, named Patanjali Ayurved Vs Dabur Limited, involves both companies and their respective Chyawanprash products.
The dispute arose from allegations that Patanjali's advertisements went beyond permissible commercial puffery and amounted to disparagement of Dabur's Chyawanprash products. Dabur Limited had filed a suit, claiming that Patanjali's campaign disparaged its flagship Chyawanprash brand, which commands over 60% of the market.
In July 2025, single-judge Justice Mini Pushkarna passed an interim order directing Patanjali Ayurved Ltd. and Patanjali Foods Ltd. to modify their advertisements. The order directed Patanjali to delete phrases such as "Why settle for ordinary Chyawanprash made with 40 herbs?" from print ads and remove portions suggesting only those with Ayurvedic knowledge could prepare "original Chyawanprash" from television commercials.
However, Patanjali argues that the ads do not directly reference Dabur, that the use of the word "ordinary" has a neutral connotation, and that its "special" formulation is based on the Ayurved Sar Sangrah with regulatory approval. They also contend that exaggeration is an accepted feature of advertising under the doctrine of puffery and that the interim order effectively pre-judged disputed issues such as whether Chyawanprash is to be made with 40 or 51 herbs.
The Delhi High Court has pulled up Patanjali for filing an appeal challenging a single-judge order. The Bench of Justices Hari Shankar and Om Prakash Shukla asked Patanjali to either withdraw the appeal or face costs. Dabur, represented by Senior Advocate Sandeep Sethi with advocates R Jawahar Lal, Anirudh Bakhru, and Meghna Kumar, contended that Patanjali's campaign amounted to generic disparagement by misrepresenting formulations, questioning Dabur's fidelity to Ayurvedic tradition, and branding its product as inferior.
The case has been listed for further consideration on September 23, Tuesday. Senior Advocate Jayant Mehta, appearing for Patanjali, sought time to take instructions on the next course of action. The order did not direct Patanjali to take down the entire ad, but only ordered modification of certain portions of it.
This ongoing dispute highlights the complexities and nuances involved in regulating advertising claims, particularly in the context of traditional medicines like Ayurveda. The outcome of this case could have significant implications for the advertising industry and the broader Ayurvedic sector.
Read also:
- Critical Hours: The Imperative of Administering a Hepatitis B Vaccine to Newborns within 24 Hours
- Expansion of Obamacare subsidies results in 3.6 million additional individuals receiving insurance coverage, according to the Congressional Budget Office, at an estimated cost of $350 billion.
- County Hall's grand display pays tribute to compassionate family members - County administration lauds loving relatives
- Grains of contemporary wheat now offer fewer essential nutrients
