Delhi High Court Orders Patanjali to Pull Down Ads Targeting Dabur Chyawanprash

The Delhi High Court on Thursday directed Patanjali Ayurved to immediately take down advertisements that allegedly disparaged market-leading brand Dabur’s Chyawanprash. The interim order was passed by Justice Mini Pushkarna after Dabur filed a suit accusing Baba Ramdev’s company of running a misleading and disrespectful ad campaign.

The court found that Patanjali’s advertisement was “prima facie disparaging” to Dabur’s product. The ruling provides immediate, temporary relief to Dabur in the ongoing legal battle between the two Ayurvedic giants. The matter has been listed for a further hearing on July 14.

The controversy erupted over a recent Patanjali advertisement featuring Baba Ramdev, in which he questioned the authenticity of other Chyawanprash brands available in the market. The ad posed the question: “Those who do not have knowledge of Ayurveda and Vedas, how can they create ‘original’ Chyawanprash in the tradition of Charak, Sushrut, Dhanwantari and Chyawan Rishi?”

Dabur, which holds over 60% of the market share, argued that the advertisement directly and unfairly targeted its product. The company took strong exception to references in the ad that labelled a Chyawanprash made with “40 herbs” as “ordinary.” Dabur’s product is prominently marketed as containing “40+ herbs.”

In its petition, Dabur contended that the advertisement was disparaging in three ways: it misrepresented Patanjali’s own formula as superior, it questioned Dabur’s adherence to authentic Ayurvedic traditions, and it deliberately portrayed Dabur’s product as inferior.

Dabur’s legal team argued that such advertising misleads consumers and erodes confidence in a product category that is strictly regulated under India’s Drugs and Cosmetics Act. The act mandates that all companies must adhere to formulations prescribed in ancient Ayurvedic texts. Labelling a compliant product as “ordinary,” Dabur argued, is both deceptive and harmful.

The company also raised public safety concerns, suggesting the ad implied that non-Patanjali products could be harmful. Dabur’s suit also referred to previous Supreme Court orders in contempt cases against Patanjali for similar misleading advertisements, claiming a history of such actions by the company.