The Delhi High Court has directed Patanjali Ayurved to remove within 72 hours an advertisement for its Chyawanprash that branded competing products as “dhokha” (deception), holding that commercial speech does not extend to false or misleading claims that disparage rivals. The verdict underscores the legal limits of advertising under the Indian Constitution, particularly when commercial speech crosses into defamation or unfair competition.

Court’s Ruling on Commercial Speech

A bench of Justice Tejas Karia observed that the fundamental right to free speech under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution extends to commercial speech but loses protection the moment it becomes false, misleading, unfair, or deceptive. The court emphasized that the freedom of expression does not grant companies the license to malign competitors or denigrate their products.

“The right to commercial speech is also subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2) of the Constitution,” the bench noted, highlighting that claims made in advertisements must be truthful, non-deceptive, and cannot impugn an entire class of products.

The 37-page judgment stated, “A perusal of the impugned advertisement shows that the defendants [Patanjali] have tried to convey the message that all the manufacturers of Chyawanprash are deceiving their customers. If an advertisement crosses the permissible limits and becomes false, misleading, unfair, or deceptive, it ceases to enjoy the protection afforded by Article 19(1)(a).”

Background: Dabur’s Plea

The order came in response to a petition filed by Dabur India Limited, which argued that the Patanjali advertisement disparaged not just a particular competitor but all Chyawanprash manufacturers. Dabur, which commands over 60% of the market share in the segment, contended that the use of the term “dhokha” amounted to a per se defamatory representation, creating a negative perception of the product category as a whole.

Senior Advocate Sandeep Sethi, representing Dabur, highlighted that the advertisement did not target a single competitor but undermined the reputation of all players in the Chyawanprash market. “It paints all other manufacturers in a negative light, thereby denigrating an entire class of goods. The term used is inherently misleading and disparaging,” he said.

Patanjali’s Defense

Patanjali, through Senior Advocate Rajiv Nayyar, defended the advertisement, arguing that it did not refer to any particular competitor, including Dabur. Nayyar contended that the word “dhokha” was intended to emphasize the superior qualities of Patanjali’s Chyawanprash, specifically additional ingredients not found in other products, rather than to malign competitors.

He further argued that commercial advertising, including comparative advertising, is recognized under the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression, and the use of puffery or hyperbole to describe one’s own product is permissible.

Court’s Rejection of Patanjali’s Arguments

Justice Karia rejected the arguments put forth by Patanjali, stating that while advertisers are allowed to highlight the virtues of their own products, they cannot disparage an entire class of competing goods. The court clarified that exaggeration or embellishment is acceptable, but general denigration of rivals crosses the line into unfair competition.

“Whereas it is open to exaggerate the claims relating to the goods or services and embellish their virtues or benefits, it is not open to denigrate or disparage the goods of others as a class in its entirety,” the court noted. The bench emphasized that while comparative advertising is permissible, it must be factual, precise, and non-misleading.

Justice Karia pointed out that the advertisement, by branding all competing Chyawanprash products as deceptive, had the potential to harm Dabur as the market leader. “It is open to an advertiser to highlight that a particular aspect or quality of its product is superior to that of a rival, provided that the overall message of the advertisement is not misleading. Any factual claim or representation made in an advertisement must be accurate and free from the potential to mislead,” the judgment stated.

Implications for Advertising and Corporate Conduct

The ruling has significant implications for commercial advertising in India, particularly in the FMCG (Fast-Moving Consumer Goods) sector. It reinforces that freedom of expression does not shield businesses from legal liability when advertising crosses into false, unfair, or disparaging claims.

Experts note that the judgment provides clarity on how courts may assess the boundaries of comparative advertising. While highlighting the benefits of one’s own product is allowed, general claims that malign a product category or competitors collectively are not permissible.

“This judgment is an important precedent. Advertisers must ensure that any comparative claims are factually accurate, specific, and not misleading,” said a legal analyst. “The decision makes it clear that the constitutional protection of commercial speech is not absolute and must coexist with the rights of competitors and consumer protection norms.”

Enforcement of the Court Order

The Delhi High Court has directed Patanjali to remove the advertisement within 72 hours of the order. The bench’s directive is binding and failure to comply could attract contempt proceedings.

The judgment also underscores the role of courts in regulating advertising practices to protect both consumers and competitors from misleading or disparaging content. As consumer awareness grows and competition intensifies in sectors like health supplements, courts are likely to scrutinize advertisements more closely, ensuring they adhere to standards of truthfulness and fairness.

Conclusion

The Delhi High Court’s verdict against Patanjali highlights the limits of commercial free speech under the Indian Constitution. While businesses can promote their products and use exaggeration to emphasize quality, they cannot mislead consumers or denigrate competitors as a class. The ruling serves as a reminder to corporations that advertising strategies must balance promotional objectives with legal obligations, ethical conduct, and respect for market competitors.