Take on
Summary AI is born, the news room has been reviewed.
The Delhi High Court criticized Ramdev for violating previous orders.
Justice Amit Bansal said that Ramdev shows a disregard for the directions of the court.
Ramdev’s recent video allegedly disappointed the Roh OF.
New Delhi:
The Delhi High Court on Thursday informed the yoga guru Ramdev that it was informed that he had once again published a video in which there was a derogatory remarks against the Herbal drink Roh AF in a clear violation of the earlier direction of the court.
Justice Amit Bansal, who is presiding over the case, said that the conduct of the Patanjali founder demonstrated that he was “under control” and “lives in his world.” The court had earlier barred Ramdev from releasing any public comments, advertisements, or video targeting Hamard National Foundation India or its major product, Roe Efza.
Justice Bansal said, “In view of the final order, this video along with his affidavit is Prima Facial in contempt. I will now issue an contempt notice. We are calling him here.”
Background of dispute
The statements made by Ramdev at the beginning of this month stems legal proceedings, in which he accused Patanjali’s “Gulab Sharbat”, that the revenue of Roh Afza of Hamdard was being used to build Madras and mosques. The “Sharbat Jihad” branded remarks by Ramdev instigated resentment and inspired Hamdard to seek judicial intervention.
The High Court saw during a hearing on 22 April that the comments “shocked the court” and “uncertain”. The bench warned Ramdev’s legal team that a stringent order would be followed if the corrective steps were not taken immediately. In response, Ramdev assured the court that all related online materials, including advertisements and social media posts, would be taken under no delay.
Following the court’s advice, Ramdev’s lawyer presented an undertaking in the court, saying that he would avoid making such comments and remove objectionable material. The court ordered that an affidavit should be filed confirming this venture.
New video controversy
Despite the previous order and written venture of the court, Hamard’s legal team presented the material on Thursday morning, suggesting that Ramdev once again released a video with equal objectionable material. Senior advocates Mukul Rohtgi and Sandeep Sethi appeared for Hamdard, stating that the video was a clear violation of the previous instruction and the court was deliberately contested.
“This is to hate the speech. He says that it is a syrup jihad. They should pursue their business. Why is he bothering us?” Mr. Rohtgi asked.
Mr. Sethi alleged that Ramdev’s comments targeted the religious identity of Hamard’s founders and should not be preserved under the right to expression.
Protect Ramdev
Senior advocate Rajiv Nair, who represented Ramdev and Patanjali, fought the arguments, saying that Hamard was “not the patron of religion” and Ramdev was only expressing his opinion. Mr. Nair insisted that his customer had not named any specific brand or community in the controversial video and reiterated that Ramdev did not cause communal discord.
“If he gives an opinion, he cannot be stopped. You cannot stop someone from expressing an opinion,” said Mr. Nair.
However, the court remained unrelated. Justice Bansal replied, “He can hold these opinions into his head; he does not need to express.”
