In Dabur India Limited v Patanjali Ayurved Limited and Anr, Delhi High Court dealt with comparative advertising and the limits of commercial speech in the health and wellness sector. Dabur alleged that Patanjali’s advertisements for its “Special Chyawanprash”, an Ayurvedic health supplement, disparaged Chyawanprash in general and Dabur’s flagship product in particular.
Dabur, a market leader, argued that a television commercial and print advertisements portrayed its product as inferior by referring to “ordinary Chyawanprash made with 40 herbs”. Because Dabur’s advertising emphasised its use of “40+ Ayurvedic herbs”, the reference was an indirect attack. The advertisements falsely implied that only Patanjali had authentic knowledge of Ayurvedic principles and that other manufacturers lacked such expertise. The commercial featured well-known yoga guru Ramdev, saying “original Chyawanprash” can be prepared without knowledge of Ayurveda and the Vedas. It claimed that Patanjali used 51 “priceless medicinal herbs”, closing with, “When you have the best Chyawanprash, then why settle for ordinary Chyawanprash?”
Dabur argued these statements contained general and specific disparagement. The language and visuals targeted Dabur’s product. Chyawanprash is a classical Ayurvedic formulation regulated under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. The claim that only Patanjali follows the correct Ayurvedic tradition was false and misleading, contravening the statute. Dabur argued that under rule 161(3)(i) and rule 157(1B) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945, Ayurvedic drugs follow their titles in authoritative texts. Patanjali was licensed for “Chyawanprash (Special)”, but marketed its product as “Patanjali Special Chyawanprash”, altering the meaning and implying superiority over standard Chyawanprash products.
Patanjali relied on freedom of commercial speech and expression in article 19(1)(a) of the constitution. It contended that comparative advertising is a legitimate business practice, allowing creative expression. Dabur’s product was neither mentioned nor depicted in the advertisements. The statements were puffery and consumers would interpret them as general promotional language, not fact. The word ordinary was intended to promote its product as a healthier alternative with more herbs and saffron, not to disparage or denigrate any other Chyawanprash product.
Dabur pointed out that Patanjali’s product contained only 46 ingredients. Some items were not Ayurvedic herbs, only Ayurvedic ingredients. Such misstatements, particularly as they concerned an Ayurvedic drug, could not be dismissed as mere puffery. The court held that permissible commercial speech must conform to higher standards in the case of regulated Ayurvedic drugs. Chyawanprash is a classical formulation based on recognised Ayurvedic texts, and licensed manufacturers must comply with such standards. It was misleading to imply that others, by using 40 herbs or lacking knowledge of the Vedas, produced substandard products. Although comparative advertising is allowed, it must not mislead or disparage. The claims in Patanjali’s advertisements were framed as factual, had authoritative backing and came from a widely recognised figure in health and wellness. This gave them undue credibility, increasing the likelihood of deception and disparagement.
“Ordinary Chyawanprash”, in contrast to “Patanjali Special Chyawanprash”, was derogatory in a regulated category where such a classification does not exist. The language belittled all other products, particularly Dabur’s, because of its market dominance and widely publicised formula.
Emphasising the importance of consumer protection, the court quoted a 2021 advisory from the Ministry of Ayush warning of misleading claims in the marketing of Ayurvedic drugs. The implication that other Chyawanprash brands were inauthentic or inferior, was untruthful, misleading and capable of influencing consumer behaviour to Dabur’s detriment. Patanjali’s advertisement was impermissible disparagement and not freedom of expression. The court granted interim relief.
Although commercial speech is protected, it has limits. This is particularly so when such speech may mislead consumers about regulated medicinal products. The importance of clarity and truthfulness in advertising cannot be overstated when consumer trust is paramount.
Authors: Manisha Singh and Kratika Patel
First Published by: IBLJ here