Ramdev’s ‘Sharbat Jihad’ Remark Shocks Delhi High Court.
Introduction to the Case
The recent remark made by yoga guru Ramdev, referring to ‘sharbat jihad’, has caused significant controversy, shaking the conscience of the Delhi High Court. This statement arose during a promotional event for Patanjali’s gulab sharbat, leading to a legal confrontation with the Hamdard National Foundation India, known for its popular drink, Rooh Afza.
The Court’s Reaction
Justice Amit Bansal expressed profound disapproval over Ramdev’s comments, deeming them indefensible. The significance of this case extends beyond mere disparagement; it strikes at the heart of communal harmony, a concern brought forth by senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, who represents Hamdard. He argued that Ramdev’s statements could instigate a communal divide, which is a serious accusation in the context of India’s diverse society.
Legal Proceedings and Implications
As the case progresses, it has attracted widespread attention, particularly regarding the implications of speech that could be perceived as hate speech. Ramdev’s defense indicated he did not directly target any specific brand or community; however, the court’s stern response indicates that such remarks could have far-reaching consequences. Following the court’s admonition, Ramdev reportedly agreed to remove the contentious videos from social media, highlighting the sensitivity surrounding this issue.
======
Ramdev’s ‘Sharbat Jihad’ Remark Shocks Court’s Conscience: Delhi High Court
During a hearing of a defamation plea filed by Hamdard National Foundation (India) against Patanjali Foods Ltd, Justice Amit Bansal remarked that the comments made by Ramdev “shock the conscience of the court” and are “indefensible.” He warned Patanjali’s counsel to take instructions from their client, cautioning that a strong order would otherwise follow.
The controversy stems from a recent statement made by Ramdev while promoting Patanjali’s rose-flavored sharbat. He alleged that money earned from the sale of Rooh Afza was being used to build madrasas and mosques, a comment Hamdard termed as communal and damaging to its reputation.
Hamdard’s legal counsel apprised the court of the deeply offensive nature of the remark and requested urgent redressal. The court, taking note of the sensitivity of the issue, indicated that such divisive comments could not be tolerated and must be met with legal consequences.
Justice Amit Bansal slammed Ramdev over claims linking Rooh Afza profits to madrasas, calling it shocking and indefensible in court.