New Delhi, May 1 (UNI) The Delhi High Court on Thursday came down heavily on yoga guru Baba Ramdev for once again making objectionable remarks against Hamdard’s popular Rooh Afza product, despite a previous restraint order.
Justice Amit Bansal observed that Ramdev “lives in his own world and is not in anyone’s control,” as the Court took strong exception to a fresh video allegedly violating its earlier directions.
The controversy arose from Ramdev’s “Sharbat Jihad” remark, made earlier this month during a promotion for Patanjali’s rose sharbat, where he allegedly claimed that proceeds from Rooh Afza sales were being used to fund madrasas and mosques.
Though Ramdev later claimed he hadn’t named any specific brand or community, the Court had restrained him from issuing any statements, advertisements, or social media posts targeting Hamdard.
On Thursday morning, when informed of the latest video, Justice Bansal noted that Ramdev appeared to be prima facie in contempt of court.
“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 remarked, posting the matter for a post-lunch hearing at 2:15 PM.
Following the court’s sharp observations, Senior Advocate Rajiv Nayar appeared for Ramdev and Patanjali in the afternoon session.
Nayar informed the bench that the offending portion of the video would be removed from all social media platforms and other media channels within 24 hours.
Accepting this submission, the Court directed immediate compliance and listed Hamdard’s application seeking an interim injunction for further hearing on Friday.
The suit, filed by Hamdard National Foundation (India), sought the removal of all objectionable videos from social media and restraining Ramdev from making any further disparaging remarks against its flagship Rooh Afza product.
Previously, Justice Bansal had strongly criticised Ramdev’s statements, calling them “indefensible” and stating they had “shocked the conscience of the Court.”
Justice Bansal showed his displeasure with Ramdev’s repeated defiance of judicial restraint and his tendency to act beyond legal bounds.
