Kerala High Court Draws on Ramayan Author Valmiki’s Life to Advocate Criminal Rehabilitation

Recently, the Delhi High Court gave an important judgment in the dispute between Dabur India Limited and Patanjali Ayurved Limited and answered important questions regarding the ethics of advertisement, product disparagement, and Ayurvedic medicines regulation. The case throws some light on the thin line that advertising between promotion of own products and undermining competitors in such a delicate field of traditional care.

History of a Controversy

Dabur India Limited is a leading organization in the Chyawanprash industry, and as such, it took legal action against Patanjali Ayurved Limited. Dabur argued that since the television advertisements (TVCs) and the print adverts for the so-called Patanjali Special Chyawanprash product were only criticizing Dabur and its Chyawanprash product, it was in fact demeaning the entire category of Chyawanprash and its products at the same time. Dabur, which had a significant market share of more than 61 percent in the Chyawanprash market segment as of October 2024, claimed that Patanjali had made false and misleading statements in its advertisements because they compared the Patanjali product with the Dabur brand and other available Chyawanprash products. At the heart of Dabur’s claim against Patanjali was the advertisement in which Patanjali, firstly, said that other manufacturers did not possess the traditional Ayurvedic knowledge to make the original Chyawanprash, and secondly, insinuated that their products were ordinary and contained fewer herbs (40 as compared to what Patanjali claimed to have – 51) and thus ensured consumers’ version. Distribution of Patanjali was also complaining about the use of mercury in their products, which was not supported by the required medical supervision notes.

The Defense of Patanjali: Puffery and Free Speech

Patanjali Ayurved Limited defended against these allegations by stating that their advertisements only contain mentioning good things and the superiority of their product which will come under admissible puffery under commercial advertisement. They reasoned that they did not mention it in their advertisements as well as did not recognizeably identify the product of Dabur or any other competitor products and thus, did not amount to disparagement. According to Patanjali, they used the Indian Constitution Article 19(1) (a) as commercial free speech does give some level of creativity and an inferred dispensation which becomes legal, provided the competitor brand is not directly cited. They justified their use of the word ordinary was to help distinguish their product from being used as a healthier alternative containing more ingredients and not to make it sound negative. Patanjali also said their product name was called Special Chyawanprash and was consistent with the authoritative Ayurvedic books and the ingredients again were in the same traditional formulation which included Makardhwaj which was a compound of mercury.

Principles governing legal issues and clauses that are analyzed.

This case was very careful in regard to a number of general issues. What was put under focus was the meaning of disparagement in advertisement, especially for products that fall under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 such as Ayurvedic, Siddha, or Unani (ASU) drugs. The court underlined that the requirements imposed on advertisements that are misleading should be more increased and strenuous in the case of medicinal preparations as they directly affect the health of these people. As compared to general consumer goods (such as seaweed cleaners or cooking oil, as mentioned in other cases), claims about drugs and medicines should be even more true.

The court even took into account the Code of Self-Regulation of advertisement content proposed by the Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI) which is not legally binding, but would however, be helpful in gaining a real insight into the ethics of advertisement conduct. Important aspects of the ASCI Code which included that advertisements must be truthful and claims need to be justified, were taken into account. In addition, the court embarked on an issue which entailed the scope of commercial speech under the Article 19(1) (a) section of the constitution, in which, although commercial speech is safeguarded, deceptive, unfair, misleading, or untrue advertisements are not. The meaning of section 3(a) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act was also spelled out of the essence of ASU drugs that observation of the authorized formulae is sufficient to manufacture such a drug without any prior knowledge of ayurveda or the vedas being required by manufacturers.

The strict premise on Ayurvedic drugs was introduced by the Court

The Delhi High Court finally gave their decision in favour of Dabur as they found that there was a clear case of disparagement by Patanjali. The court held that TVC and printed advertisements of Patanjali along with some clear claims and some heavy inferences, not only belittled the product of Dabur, but they stereotyped the whole generation of Channapanprash. The court held that the mention about 40 herbs clearly referred to the well-advertised produce of Dabur and this was a specific disparagement. Such phrases as ordinary Chyawanprash used in a negative meaning were further interpreted as derogatory, which meant that the rest of the legitimate Ayurvedic Chyawanprash products were inferior or not traditionally made.

Most importantly, the court points to the influence of Mr. Ramdev’s endorsement in the advertisements. Since he had marketed himself as a guru of yoga and the Vedas, his words carried a lot of weight that affected the common customer with the view that Patanjali was the only person in the world to have the right knowledge to formulate a product in a pure form as the Chyawanprash. Underlining the same the court noted that although advertisers are free to advertise that their product is the best they are not allowed to advertise that competitors do not have the required skills or that their products are bad or inferior. As the court of law explained fake comparisons are not allowed. The ruling of the court necessitated the removal of certain derogatory lyrics in the TVC and print ad of Patanjali especially those that doubt the Ayurvedic expertise of other factories, and those that make reference to ordinary Chyawanprash. This decision is an affirmation that commercial free speech cannot be used to make false or misleading statements particularly those relating to controlled drugs.

Fairness in advertising.

The case developed a great precedent, especially for the Ayurvedic and pharmaceutical industries. It highlights the role of the judiciary in providing the advert that is fair, and the consumer needs to be guarded against false advertisements of the products particularly in the case of health products. The ruling restates that healthy rivalry and product advertisement is welcome so long as it does not border on denunciation or proliferating lies that might have an economic implication on the opposing rivalries, or worse still lie to the general public as being deceptive about their health decisions.