Dabur vs Patanjali Chyawanprash- The Delhi High Court has issued a cautionary note to Patanjali Ayurved Ltd and Patanjali Foods Ltd in their ongoing legal battle with Dabur India over chyawanprash advertisements. The court signaled that Patanjali could face financial penalties if it continues to pursue its appeal, raising fresh tensions in one of the most high-profile brand wars in India’s FMCG sector.
Court’s Strong Words for Patanjali
Table of Contents
A division bench comprising Justice C Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla heard Patanjali’s appeal this week. The judges expressed displeasure at the company’s decision to contest an earlier ruling, emphasizing that the single-judge order was limited and fair.
The bench pointed out that the July order did not demand a complete withdrawal of Patanjali’s advertisements but merely required the removal of specific disparaging lines. The judges made it clear that persisting with the appeal could invite costs against the company if it refused to withdraw its challenge.
How the Dispute Began
The conflict began in December 2024 when Dabur India, one of the country’s oldest consumer goods brands, moved the Delhi High Court against Patanjali. Dabur claimed that Patanjali’s chyawanprash advertisements were misleading, defamatory, and harmful to its decades-old reputation.
At the heart of the dispute was Dabur’s accusation that Patanjali had cast doubts on the safety and quality of rival chyawanprash products. Dabur argued that Patanjali implied that competing products, including Dabur’s, contained mercury and were unsafe for children.
Further, Dabur challenged Patanjali’s claim of preparing chyawanprash with 51 herbs, while suggesting that others, including Dabur, used only 40 herbs. According to Dabur, such statements damaged consumer trust built painstakingly over generations.
Patanjali’s Defense
In response, Patanjali, co-founded by yoga guru Ramdev and Acharya Balkrishna, denied any wrongdoing. The company maintained that its advertisements never directly mentioned Dabur and that its claims were a form of legitimate self-promotion.
Patanjali argued that the statements in question were based on publicly available information, including product labels, and therefore could not be considered misleading. It insisted that its right to highlight the uniqueness of its product should be respected under the principles of commercial speech and puffery.
The July Interim Order
On July 3, 2025, Justice Mini Pushkarna, sitting as a single judge of the Delhi High Court, passed an interim order on Dabur’s plea.
The judge directed Patanjali to delete the phrase, “Why settle for ordinary Chyawanprash made with 40 herbs?” from its print advertisements. This line was seen as disparaging toward competitors, especially Dabur, without directly naming them.
Additionally, Patanjali was asked to modify its television commercial by removing storyboard segments that implied that only those with Ayurvedic knowledge could make the “original chyawanprash.”
Justice Pushkarna clarified that Patanjali was not banned from continuing its advertising campaign. However, it had to comply with these modifications to ensure fair competition and avoid misleading consumers.
Appeal and Court’s Disapproval
Instead of accepting the limited modifications, Patanjali chose to challenge the interim order before the Commercial Appellate Division of the Delhi High Court.
The company argued that the ruling went against the principles of free commercial expression and puffery, which allow brands to exaggerate their claims within reasonable limits. Patanjali insisted that it should be free to highlight its distinctiveness without restrictions.
READ ALSO- Odisha Vigilance Catches 2 BEO Staff in Sambalpur Taking ₹7,000 Bribe
However, the appellate bench disagreed. Justices Hari Shankar and Shukla observed that the single-judge order was narrow and did not stop Patanjali from advertising altogether. The bench felt that challenging such a limited directive was unnecessary and cautioned Patanjali against prolonging the dispute.
The judges warned that if Patanjali did not withdraw its appeal, the company could face costs imposed by the court.
A Long-Running Rivalry(Dabur vs Patanjali Chyawanprash)
This latest courtroom episode is part of a larger battle between two of India’s biggest names in the FMCG and Ayurveda sectors. Dabur, with its 138-year-old legacy, has dominated the chyawanprash market for decades. Patanjali, on the other hand, emerged in the past two decades as a disruptive force, using aggressive marketing and Ramdev’s influence to challenge established players.
The chyawanprash segment, worth thousands of crores in India, has become a flashpoint in this rivalry. For Dabur, defending its flagship product is crucial to protecting its heritage and consumer trust. For Patanjali, positioning its version as superior is central to its brand strategy.
What Lies
The Delhi High Court’s warning adds fresh pressure on Patanjali. If the company persists with its appeal, it risks not only legal costs but also potential damage to its credibility in the marketplace.
For now, the spotlight remains on whether Patanjali will heed the court’s advice and withdraw its challenge, or continue to push back in its fight with Dabur.
Regardless of the outcome, the case underscores how fiercely contested India’s Ayurveda and FMCG markets have become—where even traditional products like chyawanprash spark high-stakes legal battles.
By
