The Delhi High Court recently ruled on a case involving comparative advertising and commercial speech in the health and wellness sector. Dabur India Limited, a leading manufacturer of Ayurvedic products, alleged that Patanjali Ayurved Limited’s advertisements for its “Special Chyawanprash” health supplement disparaged Dabur’s flagship product and Chyawanprash in general. The advertisements, featuring yoga guru Ramdev, claimed that Patanjali’s product was made with 51 “priceless medicinal herbs” and implied that other manufacturers, including Dabur, lacked authentic knowledge of Ayurvedic principles.
Dabur argued that the advertisements contained general and specific disparagement, targeting its product and making false and misleading claims about the authenticity of Patanjali’s product. The company pointed out that Chyawanprash is a classical Ayurvedic formulation regulated under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, and that Patanjali’s claims contravened the statute. Dabur also noted that Patanjali’s product contained only 46 ingredients, not 51, and that some of the ingredients were not Ayurvedic herbs.
Patanjali defended its advertisements, citing the freedom of commercial speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. The company argued that comparative advertising is a legitimate business practice and that its statements were mere puffery, intended to promote its product as a healthier alternative. However, the court ruled in favor of Dabur, holding that permissible commercial speech must conform to higher standards in the case of regulated Ayurvedic drugs.
The court found that Patanjali’s advertisements were misleading and disparaging, implying that other Chyawanprash brands were inauthentic or inferior. The use of the term “ordinary Chyawanprash” was particularly derogatory, belittling all other products in a regulated category where such a classification does not exist. The court also noted that the advertisements had the potential to influence consumer behavior to Dabur’s detriment and that the implication that other brands were inauthentic or inferior was untruthful and misleading.
The court’s decision emphasizes the importance of consumer protection and the need for clarity and truthfulness in advertising, particularly when it comes to regulated medicinal products. While commercial speech is protected, it is not absolute and has limits when it may mislead consumers. The court’s ruling is a significant precedent in the health and wellness sector, highlighting the need for manufacturers to ensure that their advertising claims are accurate and do not disparage competitors.