The Delhi High Court on Thursday strongly criticised Yoga guru Ramdev after it was informed that he had once again released a video making derogatory remarks about the popular drink Rooh Afza, despite earlier court orders restraining him from doing so.
Justice Amit Bansal, who is hearing the case, said Ramdev seemed to be acting beyond anyone’s control. “He lives in his own world,” Justice Bansal remarked. The court had earlier barred Ramdev from making public comments or releasing advertisements targeting Hamdard National Foundation or 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.
The legal battle began after Ramdev claimed earlier this month that money earned from Hamdard’s Rooh Afza was being used to fund madrasas and mosques, while promoting Patanjali’s own drink “Gulab Sharbat.” He had even referred to the issue as “sharbat jihad”, sparking outrage.
On April 22, the court had said Ramdev’s comments “shocked the conscience of the court” and were “indefensible.” Following this, Ramdev’s team assured the court that all such online content would be removed, and a written undertaking was submitted stating that no similar comments would be made in the future.
However, on Thursday, Hamdard’s lawyers told the court that a new video had surfaced in which Ramdev made similar statements. Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing Hamdard, called the video “hate speech.”
“This amounts to hate speech. He says it is a sharbat jihad. He should carry on his business. Why is he troubling us?” Rohatgi asked.
Another lawyer, Sandeep Sethi, argued that Ramdev’s remarks were communal in nature and directly targeted the religious background of Hamdard’s founders.
Senior advocate Rajiv Nayar, appearing for Ramdev, argued that his client had not named any brand or community and was simply expressing his opinion. “Hamdard is not the custodian of religion,” he said. “You can’t stop someone from expressing an opinion.”
But the judge didn’t agree. “He can hold these opinions in his head; need not express them,” Justice Bansal responded.
