Ramdev agrees to delete controversial video clips after Delhi HC's stern warning
This marks the second instance over the last two weeks where Ramdev has volunteered to take down his videos following adverse observations by the Delhi HC.
Yoga exponent and entrepreneur Ramdev on Thursday assured the Delhi HC he would remove all offending portions of a new video containing alleged disparaging and communally divisive remarks targeting the profits earned by pharmaceutical and food company Hamdard’s popular drink Rooh Afza within 24 hours, after facing an impending contempt of court case.
This marks the second instance over the last two weeks where Ramdev has volunteered to take down his videos following adverse observations by the Delhi HC.
Justice Amit Bansal issued a stern warning to Ramdev after noting that the entrepreneur had uploaded fresh contentious content despite being reprimanded just 10 days earlier when Hamdard filed a suit claiming trademark infringement, disparagement, and defamation.
Also Read: 'Lives in his own world': Delhi HC raps Ramdev after new Rooh Afza video
“He lives in his own world. He’s not in control of anyone, he lives in his own world. The tone and tenor of the new video is exactly similar. You refer to Hamdard... this video and the affidavit that you have filed is prima facie contempt,” Justice Bansal told Patanjali’s counsel Rajiv Nayyar.
Also Read: Ramdev's ‘sharbat jihad’ remark sparks row, claims funds used to build mosques, madrasas
Senior advocate Sandeep Sethi, representing Hamdard, informed the court that instead of complying with its April 22 directive, Ramdev had uploaded another video claiming that profits earned by Hamdard were being diverted for building “Madrassas, masjids” while asserting that “their trust is in Mughal’s Aurangzeb while Patanjali’s trust is in Lord Ram.”
Sethi added that Ramdev’s affidavit was silent on the court-ordered undertaking.
The new video, which had already garnered 90,000 views and 2,200 comments, was uploaded with an intention to “create a communal divide and ensure consumers chose Patanjali’s products,” Hamdard’s counsel argued, adding that Ramdev had consciously chosen not to give the required undertaking.
On April 22, following the court’s reprimand, Ramdev had assured he would immediately take down videos and social media posts related to his “Sharbat Jihad” comment. He was directed to file an affidavit within five days undertaking not to issue similar statements, social media posts or disparaging advertisements regarding competitors’ products.
Senior counsel Nayyar defended his client, arguing the subsequent video did not disparage Hamdard’s product but merely stated that Hamdard’s profits were used for “waqf, building Madrassas” while Patanjali’s profits were used for “constructing gurukuls.” He claimed Ramdev had complied with the previous order by stating in his affidavit that he was a “law abiding citizen” who “respected all religion” and had the fundamental right to free speech when comparing competitors’ products.
Nayyar further submitted that his client had already complied with the take down order and argued that Hamdard could not seek a “gag order” against Ramdev. However, after being reprimanded by the court, he submitted that Ramdev would delete the offending parts from the video within 24 hours.
Taking note of this assurance, the court directed Ramdev to file an affidavit of compliance within one week.
Hamdard’s suit seeks a permanent injunction restraining Patanjali from infringing and disparaging its trademark, along with damages up to ₹2 crore.
