Will look at contempt: HC pulls up Ramdev on ‘sharbat jihad’ remarks

Ramdev’s offer to take down the video came after the high court earlier in the day expressed that it will consider issuing a contempt notice to him for posting a new video allegedly disparaging Hamdard and its products.

The new video was posted despite the high court on April 22 directing him to take down videos where he allegedly referred to Rooh Afza as “sharbat jihad”, and to furnish an undertaking. The court had directed Ramdev to file an affidavit stating that he would not issue any such statements, advertisements, or social media posts in the future.

The Delhi High Court had pulled up Ramdev and his Patanjali Foods Limited after Hamdard had moved a suit claiming trademark infringement, disparagement, and defamation. They had cited a video that showed Ramdev allegedly claiming that his competitor’s profits were used “for building masjids and madrasas”.

Justice Amit Bansal Thursday orally inquired with senior counsel Rajiv Nayar, representing Ramdev, “I don’t care about his political views… I’m concerned with the suit.. How do we ensure compliance that he does not refer to their name, their goods?”

Nayar responded, “It can’t be a permanent gag order (against referring to Hamdard), they can’t insist on an order that I’ll never refer to him…I can’t say I’ll never make an ad concerning Hamdard… as long as it is not disparaging.”

In turn, Justice Bansal remarked, “If that is the stance, then we will issue contempt notices… The tone and tenor of the new video is almost similar… You refer Hamdard.”

Hamdard brought to the court’s attention a new video of nearly three hours, where Ramdev allegedly refers to the company again for around two minutes.

Senior advocate Sandeep Sethi for Hamdard told the court, “Compare the original and the new video… They both refer to us, Hamdard. Both say I’m using profits to build masjid and madrasas and both have tenor of communal speech.”

“In both, he (Ramdev) says we belong to particular community and we are pursuing community interests… He seems to have gone astray… Keeping his past conduct, court had said he will not publish videos similar to past videos and he consciously does exactly that, brought out an identical video,” Sethi said.

“More than anything, it is the majesty of the court… The tone, tenor (of the) message clearly is you belong to a particular community, you’re diverting profits for that particular community and their religious structures, and I (Ramdev) belong to a different community and want people to buy it at large… So he is creating communal divide and that can’t go unmitigated. This really can’t be allowed by any sense of justice… Contumaciously, he doesn’t comply with the (April 22) order..and promptly brings another video,” Sethi added.

Later in the day, Nayar and senior advocate Jayant Mehta, after taking instruction from their client, informed the court that they will take down the the portion/extract of the video which makes a reference to Hamdard and its product.

Following the submission, Justice Bansal further recorded that Ramdev and Patanjali should take down the offending portion of the video within 24 hours from all social media platforms and any other media where it is posted. It also directed Ramdev to file an affidavit of compliance with the court’s order.

Justice Amit Bansal, meanwhile, will consider Friday an application moved against Ramdev by Hamdard under the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) pertaining to wilful disobedience of the high court order dated April 22.

Ramdev, in his initial video, had allegedly claimed that profits from Patanjali’s “rose sharbat” go towards building “gurukuls, acharyakulams and Patanjali University”.

“Jaise love jihad, vote jihad chal raha hai naa, waise sharbat jihad bhi chal raha hai (Like there is love jihad and vote jihad, there is sharbat jihad),” Ramdev had said.

Hamdard, in its suit, is also seeking a permanent injunction restraining Patanjali from infringing and disparaging its trademark, damages up to Rs 2 crore, as well as an apology and retraction. It is also seeking the court’s direction to the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology and the Department of Telecommunications (Dot) to take down the links to the alleged objectionable material.