The Delhi High Court on Thursday strongly criticized Baba Ramdev for releasing a fresh video containing communal remarks against food and beverage company Hamdard, despite earlier court directives.

The new video once again targets Hamdard’s popular drink Rooh Afza, prompting the court to consider issuing contempt proceedings.

Hamdard had recently approached the court against Ramdev and Patanjali, after the yoga guru, in a previous video, accused the company of using its profits to build mosques and madrasas, even coining the term “sharbat jihad.” The High Court had earlier termed these comments “indefensible” and said they shocked the court's conscience. Following this, Ramdev had assured the court that he would take down the content and refrain from making such statements in the future.

However, at the latest hearing, Justice Amit Bansal was informed that Ramdev had released another video repeating similar offensive remarks. Taking serious note of the violation, the judge said, “He lives in his own world,” and warned that a contempt notice would be issued unless corrective action was taken.

After the court's strong observations, Ramdev’s counsel assured that the objectionable portions of the latest video would be removed from all social media platforms within 24 hours. The court also directed that an affidavit confirming compliance be filed within a week and scheduled the next hearing for Friday to review the matter.

Senior Advocate Sandeep Sethi, representing Hamdard, argued that the new video mirrored the original one, stating, “Both refer to Hamdard, allege use of profits for religious purposes, and carry a communal tone.”

On the other hand, Senior Advocate Rajiv Nayar, appearing for Ramdev, claimed the new video did not disparage Hamdard’s product and pointed to Ramdev’s affidavit stating he does not differentiate between religions.

But Justice Bansal remained unconvinced, focusing instead on ensuring compliance with the court’s earlier order. “I don’t care about his political views. I am concerned with the suit. How do we ensure compliance... that he does not refer to their name, their goods?” the judge asked.

When Nayar argued that a permanent gag order was not legally sustainable, the Court responded, “If that is the stance, then we will issue contempt notices. The tone and tenor of the new video is almost similar.”

In light of Ramdev's assurance to take down the latest video, the court refrained from issuing a contempt notice—at least for now.