On Friday, the Delhi High Court ruled to close the lawsuit filed by Hamdard National Foundation India against Yoga Guru Ramdev concerning his controversial "Sharbat Jihad" remark against the Rooh Afza product. Justice Amit Bansal issued the decree after it was confirmed that Ramdev and Patanjali Foods Limited had taken down the objectionable videos and social media posts.
Read also: Delhi High Court: Central Empowered Committee to Oversee Felling of 50 or More Trees
During the proceedings, Senior Advocate Rajiv Nayar presented affidavits from both Ramdev and Patanjali, stating that the videos containing the remarks had been removed, thus complying with the court’s earlier instructions. This was crucial, as the court had previously criticized Ramdev for making an unfounded statement about Hamdard’s popular drink, Rooh Afza, claiming that the money earned from the product was used to build mosques and madrasas.
Ramdev had defended his statement, claiming he never named any specific brand or community. Despite this, Hamdard filed the lawsuit seeking the removal of the videos and posts that contained the remark.
In today’s hearing, Nayar assured the court that the necessary legal documents were in place and that Ramdev and Patanjali had fully complied. Following this, Justice Amit Bansal ruled in favor of Hamdard, stating, “The suit is accordingly decreed.”
This decision followed a series of earlier hearings where Ramdev had been admonished by the court. In one of these hearings, the judge criticized Ramdev for his repeated objectionable statements about Rooh Afza despite an earlier undertaking not to make further remarks.
It was emphasized that all such advertisements, whether print or video, would be removed as per Ramdev’s promise. The court, in a stern tone, had previously remarked that Ramdev’s actions "shocked its conscience" and were “indefensible."
With this ruling, the suit is officially closed, marking the end of a contentious legal battle over social media remarks.
Title: Hamdard National Foundation India v. Patanjali Food Limited & Anr.
