Delhi High Court slams Ramdev over fresh video on Rooh Afza, warns of contempt action

Justice Amit Bansal, who is hearing the case, remarked that Ramdev appeared to be "not in control of anyone" and "lives in his own world," NDTV reported.

The court had earlier restrained the Patanjali founder from making any further public comments, advertisements, or videos that targeted Hamdard National Foundation India or its flagship product, Rooh Afza.

"In view of the last order, his affidavit as well as this video are prima facie in contempt. I will issue a contempt notice now. We are just calling him here," Justice Bansal said during the hearing, reported NDTV.

Background

The case originated from Ramdev’s earlier remarks in which, while promoting Patanjali’s "Gulab Sharbat", he accused Hamdard’s Rooh Afza of funding the construction of madrasas and mosques.

He had also referred to it as part of "sharbat jihad", sparking widespread outrage. In response, Hamdard approached the High Court seeking judicial relief.

On 22 April, the court expressed strong disapproval of Ramdev’s comments, saying they "shocked the conscience of the court" and were "indefensible."

The bench warned that unless corrective measures were taken promptly, a stringent order would follow.

Subsequently, Ramdev’s legal counsel submitted an undertaking to the court promising that no further such comments would be made and that all existing online material—including advertisements and social media content—would be removed. The court directed that this assurance be formalised through an affidavit.

New video sparks fresh legal trouble

Despite the earlier order and written assurance, Hamdard’s legal team on Thursday submitted fresh material indicating that Ramdev had once again released a video containing similar objectionable content.

Senior advocates Mukul Rohatgi and Sandeep Sethi, representing Hamdard, argued that this amounted to a blatant violation of the court’s directive and a deliberate act of contempt.

"This amounts to hate speech. He says it is a sharbat jihad. He should carry on his business. Why is he troubling us?" Rohatgi said.

Mr Sethi also pointed out that the comments targeted the religious identity of Hamdard’s founders and should not be defended as free speech.

Ramdev’s defence

Appearing for Ramdev and Patanjali, senior advocate Rajiv Nayar argued that Hamdard was "not the custodian of religion" and maintained that Ramdev was simply expressing personal views.

He insisted that no specific community or brand was named in the recent video and said there was no intention to incite communal tensions.

"If he gives an opinion, then he cannot be stopped. You can't stop somebody from expressing an opinion," Nayar said.

However, the court did not accept the defence. "He can hold these opinions in his head; need not express them," Justice Bansal responded.