US EditionOn ‘Sharbat Jihad’ remark, Delhi HC says Ramdev is ‘beyond anyone’s control’
- On May 1, 2025, the Delhi High Court found Patanjali founder Baba Ramdev prima facie guilty of contempt due to a video in which he made accusations about Hamdard's Rooh Afza.
- This followed Ramdev’s controversial 'sharbat jihad' remarks and the court's April 22 order barring him from issuing related statements or videos, which he apparently violated again.
- Justice Amit Bansal criticized Ramdev’s conduct as living 'in his own world' and stated the video and affidavit were prima facie in contempt, prompting a contempt notice.
- Hamdard’s counsel asserted Ramdev alleged Rooh Afza’s revenues funded madrasas and mosques while promoting Patanjali's gulab sharbat, and argued the comments should not receive expression protection.
- The court's contempt finding signals stricter enforcement of its directive and highlights ongoing legal scrutiny of Ramdev’s public statements against Hamdard products.
13 Articles
13 Articles
"Lives In His Own World": High Court Slams Ramdev For New Video On Rooh Afza
The Delhi High Court on Thursday slammed Yoga guru Ramdev after it was informed that he had once again published a video containing disparaging remarks against the herbal drink Rooh Afza, in apparent violation of the court's earlier directive.
On ‘Sharbat Jihad’ remark, Delhi HC says Ramdev is ‘beyond anyone’s control’
The Delhi High Court found yoga guru Ramdev in prima facie contempt for his controversial remarks on Hamdard’s Rooh Afza, stating he lives in his own world and is not under anyone’s control.
Delhi High Court Slams Ramdev For Releasing New Contentious Video On ‘Sharbat Jihad’ - HW News English
The court had previously mandated that he should not make any statements or share videos regarding Hamdard’s products in the future On Thursday, the Delhi High Court criticized Yoga guru Baba Ramdev for allegedly releasing yet another video. This video contained his contentious remarks about ‘sharbat jihad’ aimed at Hamdard’s ‘Rooh Afza’, despite prior instructions to refrain. The court had previously mandated that he should not make any stateme…
Coverage Details
Bias Distribution
- 40% of the sources lean Left, 40% of the sources lean Right
To view factuality data please Upgrade to Premium
Ownership
To view ownership data please Upgrade to Vantage
