Patanjali challenges Delhi High Court order to delete parts of its Chyawanprash ad campaign

Patanjali Ayurved Ltd. and Patanjali Foods Ltd have filed an appeal before the Delhi High Court challenging a single judge order directing them to delete portions of Patanjali advertisements that allegedly disparaged Chyawanprash products sold by rival companies, including Dabur [Patanjali Ayurved Vs Dabur Limited].

The order under challenge was passed by Justice Mini Pushkarna in July this year, while hearing Dabur's suit against an advertisement campaign carried out by Patanjali for its Special Chyawanprash product.

By the July 3 interim order, Justice Pushkarna directed Patanjali to delete lines such as “Why settle for ordinary Chyawanprash made with 40 herbs?” from print advertisements. Patanjali was also ordered to remove storyboard portions of its television commercial (TVC), which suggested that those without Ayurvedic knowledge could not prepare “original Chyawanprash.” The ads were permitted to run only after such edits.

This order has now been challenged by Patanjali in an appeal filed before the High Court's Commercial Appellate Division.

In its appeal, Patanjali argues that the single judge’s order is contrary to established principles governing commercial speech and puffery.

Its key submissions include:

• No reference to Dabur: Patanjali contends the ads do not identify or depict Dabur’s product and simply extol Patanjali Special Chyawanprash. Mere market dominance, it argues, cannot be the basis for assuming disparagement.

• Neutral use of “ordinary”: The word “ordinary,” according to Patanjali, carries a neutral connotation and has been judicially recognised as non-pejorative. Reliance has been placed on recent Calcutta High Court rulings in Emami v Dabur and on the Delhi High Court ruling in Reckitt Benckiser v Wipro.

• Legitimacy of “Special”: Patanjali maintains that its formulation is derived from the Ayurved Sar Sangrah, a recognised text listed in the First Schedule to the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, and that the Uttarakhand licensing authority issued approval in October 2022. Other brands, such as Baidyanath, also market “Special Chyawanprash” based on the same text.

• Comparative advertising by Dabur itself: The appeal highlights that Dabur claims “2x/3x immunity” in its own campaigns, claims not supported by authoritative texts—showing that comparative advertising is common in the segment.

• Puffery doctrine: Patanjali submits that exaggeration and embellishment are inherent to advertising and permissible under Article 19(1)(a). Unless a competitor’s product is directly identified and denigrated, puffery is not actionable. Ads, it argues, must be seen from the perspective of the average consumer with imperfect recollection, not parsed “frame by frame.”

• Premature relief: The appellants contend that the single judge effectively decreed the suit at an interim stage despite acknowledging that various issues raised in the case - such as the dispute over “40” versus “51” herbs to prepare Chyawanprash - require trial.

Dabur had approached the Court in December 2024 contending that Patanjali’s campaign disparaged Dabur Chyawanprash, which enjoys over 60% market share and is advertised as being made with “40+ herbs.” According to Dabur, Patanjali’s campaign amounted to generic disparagement by misrepresenting formulations, questioning Dabur’s fidelity to Ayurvedic tradition, and branding its product as inferior.

Dabur argued that Chyawanprash is a classical Ayurvedic formulation regulated under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, and that portraying rival brands as “ordinary” misleads consumers and undermines public confidence. It also highlighted that the campaign insinuated health risks from consuming non-Patanjali chyawanprash, and flagged Patanjali’s previous run-ins with the Supreme Court over misleading advertisements.