“Sherbet Jihad” Comment by Ramdev Draws Sharp Rebuke from Delhi High Court

Yoga guru and Patanjali Ayurved founder Baba Ramdev has landed in legal trouble after making a controversial remark that linked the sale of a popular summer drink to communal agendas. The Delhi High Court came down heavily on Ramdev during a hearing of a defamation suit filed by Hamdard Laboratories, the manufacturer of the iconic Rooh Afza drink.

Justice Amit Bansal, while hearing the case, remarked that the comment made by Ramdev in a promotional video was “indefensible” and “shocks the conscience of the court.” The statement has triggered widespread condemnation and sparked fresh debates on the use of communal language in advertising.

The row stems from a video released earlier this month in which Ramdev, promoting Patanjali’s rose sherbet, made a veiled attack on rival brands without directly naming Hamdard. In the video, he alleged that profits from certain sherbet sales were being used to fund mosques and madrasas, while claiming that buying Patanjali’s product would help fund gurukuls and a university. “Like love jihad and vote jihad, a sherbet jihad is also on,” he said, invoking charged and controversial political terms.

Hamdard Laboratories took the matter to court, arguing that the statement was not only disparaging to its Rooh Afza product but also amounted to hate speech and attempted to create communal division. Appearing for Hamdard, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi said Ramdev’s remarks went far beyond commercial rivalry. “This is not merely a case of product disparagement. It seeks to sow communal divide. It’s essentially hate speech,” he told the court.

In response, the court expressed strong disapproval and questioned how such language could be used in commercial speech. Justice Bansal observed that Ramdev’s statement, regardless of whether a specific brand was named, was designed to influence consumers using communal rhetoric.

The court has directed Ramdev to respond to the allegations and explain his stand. It also hinted that such statements could not be defended under the freedom of commercial speech and must be scrutinized for their potential social impact.