The Delhi High Court come down like a ton of bricks on Yoga Guru Baba Ramdev for his controversial remark about "Sharbat Jihad" which he made during the advertisement of Patanjali rose sharbat. As he heard a suit by Hamdard Laboratories, Justice Amit Bansal orally noted that the statement was "indefensible" as well as "shocking the conscience of the court".
"It shocks the conscience of the Court. This is indefensible," said Justice Bansal during the proceedings.
The oral observation indicates the severity of court towards the matter, particularly in view of its communal as well as defamatory underside.
The Controversial Statement
- The controversy arousal stems from a promotional video recently released by Ramdev, in which he claimed that every money earned through Rooh Afza, the flagship product of Hamdard was being directed to fund madrasas and mosques. Though he did not explicitly name any religious group with regard to Hamdard, his such articulation of the phrase may easily be understood as a communal attack on the company and its product.
- Ramdev promptly came up with a justification for his earlier statement, asserting, I have not named any particular brand or community but such lack of clarity did not suffocate the controversy over its general implications.
Hamdard’s Legal Response
- In response to Ramdev's statement, Hamdard Laboratories initiated an action for the removal of all videos containing the cruel element of such statements from the social media platform. They stated that the statement did not stop at just product disparagement but crossed the line into inciting communal hatred.
- Before the Court, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for Hamdard, termed the statement "shocking" and charged Ramdev with trying to divide people along the religious line.
- "This is not merely a case of a product disparagement; this is a case of communal divide and hate speech," said Rohatgi in Court.
- He pointed out that calling Rooh Afza, a drink adopted by different sunder-communities in India, as part of Sharbat Jihad will go beyond mere slander to incitement.
A Pattern of Irresponsible Conduct?
- Rohatgi hardly dismissed the Sharbat Jihad-the-controversy. He reminded the Court of a history of troubles involving Baba Ramdev in other cases. He referred to the Supreme Court proceedings, wherein suo motu contempt was initiated against Ramdev and Patanjali's Managing Director Acharya Balkrishna for publishing misleading advertisements and for derogating allopathy, contrary to the terms of an undertaking previously given to the court.
- This was all done to bolster Hamdard's perception of Ramdev as often acting in an irresponsible and defamatory manner, cased in a cover of free speech or aggressive marketing.
- Rohatgi maintained that Ramdev should be held to a higher standard of accountability due to his status as a public figure with a large following: "He has a big name. He doesn't need to bring others down to sell his products," he maintained.
Court Issues Stern Warning
- During the impugned hearing, proxy counsel appeared on behalf of Ramdev and sought a passover, stating that the main counsel was busy before the NCLAT. Justice Bansal was unhappy with this arrangement.
- The judge ordered that the main counsel must be present before the court by 12 PM and warned the counsel that failing to do so would bring the court to pass a "very strong order." This strongly suggests that the court is serious about handling what it perceives to be an irresponsible and possibly inflammatory statement made by the public figure.
Public and Legal Repercussions
- Ramdev's statement and the court's response have given rise to vast public and media discourse on the limits of free speech, especially with respect to matters of commerce and communal sentiments. "Sharbat Jihad" has been labelled merely another variation of other communal tropes like Love Jihad and Land Jihad employed fairly consistently to demonize particular communities.
- Legal commentators have noted that such cases established grounds for stressing the need for ethical advertising and public communication. This case also shows that the courts are siding with restraining the public utterances of powerful people nowadays where there is an element of incitement or divisive grouping involved.
What Lies Ahead?
The next turn now befalls the Delhi High Court as everybody's eye gazes towards the court. Strong orders by the court might spell disaster for a great section of public figures, industries, and advertising standards in India. It may very well pave the way for future cases of banter among commercial rivalries in a communalist note.
Hamdard's plea makes added demands, the removal of content but accountability and restraint from those in positions of influence. Only time will tell whether the Court grants that relief and issues larger directions in the hearings to come.
Sharks of Law offers a comprehensive legal solutions facility, providing an extensive collection of information on diverse areas of law in the legal field by the best professionals in this area. With this law firm, you can search and find a lawyer who can meet your legal requirements for online consultation. The attorneys at Sharks of Law have the necessary expertise across all the fields involved should you have any inquiries that require legal counsel.
Email:-helpdesk@sharksoflaw.com
Help Desk:-+91-88770-01993
