Ramdev Submits Undertaking To Take Down Controversial Posts On Rooh Afza Day After Delhi HC’s Rap

Ramdev’s counsel, Rajiv Nayyar, informed a bench led by Justice Amit Bansal that an affidavit complying with the court’s April 22 directive would be filed later in the day. He also requested the disposal of the suit filed by Hamdard against Patanjali and Ramdev.

After receiving a reprimand from the High Court on April 22, Ramdev assured the bench that he would promptly remove videos and social media posts related to his controversial “Sharbat Jihad” remark.

He was directed to file an affidavit within five days, undertaking not to issue any future statements, social media posts, or disparaging videos or advertisements similar to those at the center of the current suit, particularly concerning products of competing companies.

“Mr Nayar submits that the defendants are willing to file an undertaking in terms of paragraph 18 of the order dated April 22. Copy of the affidavit has been given to the counsel for the plaintiff. Let the same be filed during the course of the day. List on May 9,” the court said in its order.

The bench reprimanded Ramdev over offensive videos targeting Hamdard’s popular drink, RoohAfza, in response to a suit filed by Hamdard Laboratories on April 22 hearing. The court ordered him to take down the videos and submit an undertaking that he would refrain from making such videos or statements in the future.

But Hamdard’s counsel senior advocate Sandeep Sethi on Thursday said the court that Ramdev had released another video on which he alleged that the profit earned by Hamdard were being used to fund madrassas and mosques, and claimed that while Hamdard placed its trust in Mughal Rulaer Aurangzeb, Patanjali’s allegiance was to Lord Ram.

Sethi also highlighted that Ramdev’s affidavit failed to address the undertaking explicitly required by the court. Justice Bansal observed that the tone and tenor of the new video appeared similar to the earlier ones that had prompted the court’s intervention.

“Para 18 was the requirement, he has not complied with that. The affidavit that you filed is prima facie contempt. He’s not in control of anyone and lives in his own world. The tone and tenor of the new video is exactly similar. You refer to Hamdard… The money goes to…. Where have you complied with Para 18? According to my seeing, of the video and the affidavit, both are non compliant,”Justice Bansal said, posting the matter for further hearing later in the day while hearing a trademark infringement case filed by Hamdard’s Rooh Afza.

Sethi said that Ramdev had deliberately chosen not to include the court-mandated undertaking in his affidavit and had instead released a new video aimed at creating communal division among consumers, allegedly to influence them to choose Patanjali’s products over others.

Nayyar contended that Ramdev had complied with the court’s directive, noting that the affidavit said that he was a ‘law-abiding citizen’ who respected all religions and held fundamental right of free speech, including the right to compare competitors’ products. He argued that the video did not disparage Hamdard’s products, declared that the earlier take-down order had already been followed, and maintained that the court could not impose a gag order restricting Ramdev’s future speech.