The legal proceedings stem from statements made by Ramdev earlier this month.
The Delhi High Court on Thursday slammed Yoga guru Ramdev after it was informed that he had once again published a video containing disparaging remarks against the herbal drink Rooh Afza, in apparent violation of the court's earlier directive.
Justice Amit Bansal, who is presiding over the case, said the conduct of the Patanjali founder demonstrated that he was "not in control of anyone" and "lives in his own world." The court had earlier barred Ramdev from issuing any further public comments, advertisements, or videos targeting Hamdard National Foundation India or its flagship product, Rooh Afza.
"In view of the last order, his affidavit as well as this video are prima facie in contempt. I will issue a contempt notice now. We are just calling him here," Justice Bansal said.
Background of the Dispute
The legal proceedings stem from statements made by Ramdev earlier this month, in which he alleged, while promoting Patanjali's "Gulab Sharbat", that revenues from Hamdard's Rooh Afza were being used to fund the construction of madrasas and mosques. The remarks, branded "sharbat jihad" by Ramdev, provoked outrage and prompted Hamdard to seek judicial intervention.
The High Court, during a hearing on 22 April, had observed that the comments "shocked the conscience of the court" and were "indefensible." The bench warned Ramdev's legal team that if immediate corrective steps were not taken, a stringent order would follow. In response, Ramdev assured the court that all related online content, including advertisements and social media posts, would be taken down without delay.
Following the court's admonition, Ramdev's counsel submitted an undertaking to the court stating that he would refrain from making further such comments and would remove the offending content. The court ordered that an affidavit be filed confirming this undertaking.
New Video Controversy
Despite the court's previous order and the written undertaking, Hamdard's legal team presented material on Thursday morning suggesting that Ramdev had once again released a video containing similar objectionable content. Senior advocates Mukul Rohatgi and Sandeep Sethi, appearing for Hamdard, contended that the video was a clear breach of the earlier directive and amounted to deliberate contempt of court.
"This amounts to hate speech. He says it is a sharbat jihad. He should carry on his business. Why is he troubling us?" Mr Rohatgi asked.
Mr Sethi alleged that Ramdev's comments targeted the religious identity of Hamdard's founders and should not be protected under the right to expression.
Ramdev's Defence
Senior advocate Rajiv Nayar, representing Ramdev and Patanjali, countered the arguments by stating that Hamdard was "not the custodian of religion" and that Ramdev was merely expressing his opinions. Mr Nayar insisted that his client had not named any specific brand or community in the controversial video and reiterated that Ramdev did not intend to cause communal discord.
"If he gives an opinion, then he cannot be stopped. You can't stop somebody from expressing an opinion," Mr Nayar said.
However, the court remained unconvinced. "He can hold these opinions in his head; need not express them," Justice Bansal responded.
