Delhi High Court Blocks Patanjali’s ‘Dhoka’ Chyawanprash Ad Over Misleading Claims

New Delhi, November 2025: In a major blow to Patanjali Ayurved’s latest advertising campaign, the Delhi High Court has issued an interim order restraining the company from broadcasting or circulating its controversial chyawanprash advertisement titled “51 Herbs. 1 Truth. Patanjali Chyawanprash!” across all media platforms. The court held that the campaign was “misleading, disparaging, and detrimental to fair competition” after a complaint filed by rival brand Dabur India Ltd. The ruling underscores the judiciary’s growing scrutiny of aggressive comparative advertising in India’s fast-expanding FMCG and Ayurvedic product markets. It also highlights the need for brands to balance persuasive marketing with responsible communication — particularly when celebrity figures and health-related claims are involved. Background: The Controversial ‘Dhoka’ Campaign The advertisement at the heart of the controversy was a 25-second television and digital spot that depicted a mother offering chyawanprash to her child while yoga guru Baba Ramdev proclaimed that “most people are fooled in the name of chyawanprash.” The video then promoted Patanjali’s version of the product as the “only truth” among “51 herbs,” directly implying that competing brands were deceptive or inferior. The campaign, popularly referred to online as the “Dhoka” (meaning deception or fraud) chyawanprash advertisement, immediately sparked backlash. Competitors, industry associations, and advertising ethics bodies expressed concern that the message was not mere puffery but amounted to denigrating an entire category of established Ayurvedic brands — many of which have operated for decades. The Legal Challenge by Dabur Dabur India, a century-old FMCG giant and one of the country’s largest chyawanprash manufacturers, moved the Delhi High Court alleging that Patanjali’s advertisement violated the Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI) guidelines and the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The company argued that the advertisement not only misled consumers but also unfairly harmed the reputation and goodwill of all other chyawanprash producers. In its petition, Dabur contended that Patanjali’s commercial created a false impression that rival chyawanprash products were adulterated or fake. The plea further emphasized that the ad was likely to cause “irreparable damage” to consumer trust in Ayurvedic health supplements as a whole. Court’s Observations and Interim Order Delivering the interim order, Justice Tejas Karia made several critical observations about the advertisement’s intent and impact. The court held that by portraying other chyawanprash manufacturers as “fooling” consumers, Patanjali had crossed the line separating permissible competitive advertising from misleading disparagement. “To convey that only Patanjali’s product is genuine and others are deceptive is incorrect and disparages the entire class of chyawanprash,” the judge said. “Any manufacturer who follows statutory and ayurvedic guidelines cannot be denigrated as deceptive.” Justice Karia further observed that the involvement of Baba Ramdev — a personality widely regarded as an authority in yoga and Ayurveda — magnified the misleading impact. The advertisement, the court noted, was likely to persuade consumers to believe that competing brands lacked authenticity or quality, even in the absence of evidence. Accordingly, the court directed Patanjali to remove the advertisement from television, print, and digital platforms within three days. It also warned that failure to comply could invite contempt proceedings or further legal sanctions. Free Speech vs. Fair Competition In its defence, Patanjali argued that the advertisement represented creative freedom and commercial expression protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to freedom of speech and expression. The company maintained that the campaign was intended to highlight the purity and herbal authenticity of its chyawanprash, not to defame rivals. However, the court rejected this contention, clarifying that the right to free expression in commercial advertising is not absolute. Justice Karia stated that while companies are free to praise their own products, they must refrain from misleading the public or casting unjustified aspersions on competitors. “Freedom of expression does not extend to making false or disparaging statements that harm another’s business,” the order said. “This advertisement goes beyond permissible puffery and amounts to misleading disparagement.” The court also noted that halting the campaign would not cause any “irreparable injury” to Patanjali’s business, as the company remained free to advertise its chyawanprash — provided such promotions adhered to fairness and accuracy standards. Pattern of Controversial Advertising This is not the first time Patanjali has faced judicial or regulatory censure over its advertising practices. Earlier in July 2025, the Delhi High Court had similarly restrained the company from running another chyawanprash campaign that implied rival brands were inferior or non-authentic. That earlier injunction was later upheld by a division bench, reinforcing the legal precedent against comparative disparagement in the health and wellness sector. Over the years, Patanjali — co-founded by Baba Ramdev and Acharya Balkrishna — has repeatedly attracted controversy for its marketing claims related to Ayurvedic medicines, food products, and even COVID-19 treatments. Critics argue that the company’s marketing strategies often blur the line between traditional wisdom and unverified medical assertions, risking consumer confusion. Industry and Consumer Reactions The High Court’s ruling has been widely welcomed by industry peers and consumer rights advocates. Advertising experts say the judgment sends a clear message that even dominant brands must adhere to ethical standards in their communication. A senior FMCG executive, speaking on condition of anonymity, remarked: “This verdict reinforces that creativity in advertising must coexist with credibility. Consumers today are highly aware, and misleading claims can damage not just competitors but the entire industry.” The Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI) has also commended the court’s approach, stating that such judicial interventions help ensure accountability in sectors dealing with health and wellness. ASCI recently tightened its guidelines for advertisements involving ayurvedic and herbal products, mandating clear disclaimers and substantiation for efficacy claims. On social media, reactions were mixed. While some users criticized Dabur for “overreacting,” many agreed that Patanjali’s tone was unnecessarily combative. The keyword #DhokaAd trended briefly on X (formerly Twitter), with users debating the ethics of negative advertising in India’s FMCG space. Broader Implications for Brand Advertising Legal analysts suggest that the ruling could have far-reaching consequences for comparative advertising in India. Courts have increasingly emphasized that while businesses may claim superiority, they cannot do so by directly or indirectly maligning a competitor’s product. The decision also reinforces the Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) Rules, 2020, which define misleading advertisements as those making false claims or concealing material information. Given the growing influence of digital and influencer-led marketing, experts expect closer regulatory oversight of content that blends health, wellness, and celebrity endorsement. Brand strategists believe this case will serve as a wake-up call for marketers across sectors — especially those relying on aggressive “truth vs. myth” storytelling formats. The ruling reaffirms that brand communication must remain comparative, not combative. Conclusion The Delhi High Court’s decision to block Patanjali’s “Dhoka” chyawanprash advertisement marks a pivotal moment in India’s advertising and consumer-protection landscape. It balances the right to commercial expression with the duty to communicate responsibly, setting a precedent for transparency and respect in brand rivalry. While Patanjali can still promote its chyawanprash and its herbal credentials, the judgment makes it clear that truth in advertising cannot come at the cost of misleading consumers or denigrating competitors. In a market driven by trust and wellness, credibility may ultimately prove to be the most powerful advertisement of all.