Manas Dasgupta
NEW DELHI, May 1: The Delhi High Court on Thursday slammed the Yoga guru Baba Ramdev as an “incorrigible person” who “lived in his own world” and threatened to issue against him a contempt of court notice for his repeat attack on the popular drink brand “Rooh Afza” ignoring the court’s earlier order.
Justice Amit Bansal observed that the Yoga practitioner was “not in control of anyone” and lived in his own world finding him prima facie contempt of its previous order. “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 finding him in prima facie contempt of its previous order.
“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 finding him in prima facie contempt of its previous order.
“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 after the court was informed on Thursday that in violation of its earlier order, Baba Ramdev had released another video making objectionable statements against the drink brand.
The case pertains to a petition filed by the Hamdard National Foundation (India) against Ramdev and Patanjali Foods Ltd for allegedly demoting Rooh Afza. The legal proceedings stem from statements made by Ramdev last month in which he alleged while promoting Patanjali’s “Gulab Sharbat” that revenues from Hamdard’s Rooh Afza were being used to fund the construction of madrasas and mosques. The remarks, branded “sharbat jihad” by Ramdev, provoked outrage and prompted Hamdard to seek judicial intervention.
“If you drink that sharbat, madrasas and mosques will be built. But if you drink this [referring to Patanjali’s rose sharbat], gurukuls will be built, Acharya Kulam will be developed, Patanjali University will expand and the Bharatiya Shiksha Board will grow. Just like there is love jihad, this is also a kind of sharbat jihad. To protect yourself from this sharbat jihad, this message must reach everyone,” Baba Ramdev had said.
The High Court, during a hearing on 22 April, had observed that the comments “shocked the conscience of the court” and were “indefensible.” The bench had warned Ramdev’s legal team that if immediate corrective steps were not taken, a stringent order would follow. In response, Ramdev assured the court that all related online content, including advertisements and social media posts, would be taken down without delay.
Following the court’s admonition, Ramdev’s counsel had submitted an undertaking to the court stating that he would refrain from making further such comments and would remove the offending content. The court ordered that an affidavit be filed confirming this undertaking.
Despite the court’s previous order and the written undertaking, Hamdard’s legal team presented material on Thursday morning suggesting that Ramdev had once again released a video containing similar objectionable content. Senior advocates Mukul Rohatgi and Sandeep Sethi, appearing for Hamdard, contended that the video was a clear breach of the earlier directive and amounted to deliberate contempt of court.
“This amounts to hate speech. He says it is a sharbat jihad. He should carry on his business. Why is he troubling us?” Mr Rohatgi asked. Mr Sethi alleged that Ramdev’s comments targeted the religious identity of Hamdard’s founders and should not be protected under the right to expression.
Senior advocate Rajiv Nayar, representing Ramdev and Patanjali, countered the arguments by stating that Hamdard was “not the custodian of religion” and that Ramdev was merely expressing his opinions. Mr Nayar insisted that his client had not named any specific brand or community in the controversial video and reiterated that Ramdev did not intend to cause communal discord.
“If he gives an opinion, then he cannot be stopped. You can’t stop somebody from expressing an opinion,” Mr Nayar said. But the court remained unconvinced. “He can hold these opinions in his head; need not express them,” Justice Bansal responded.
Ramdev’s counsel urged the court to take up the matter after sometime as the arguing counsel was unavailable. The court, therefore, deferred the hearing for some time.
