Calcutta High Court Lifts Gag Order On YouTuber Arpit Mangal Over Emami Zandu Ashwagandha Video

The Calcutta High Court has set aside an ex parte injunction restraining YouTuber Arpit Mangal from airing or publishing any statement about Emami's “Zandu Ashwagandha Gold Plus”.

The product is an ayurvedic formulation marketed for stress management, better sleep, muscle recovery, and overall stamina and vitality.

The bench held that there was sufficient substance in Mangal's defence of truth at this stage.

A Division Bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Justice Sandip Kumar De delivered the judgment on September 22, allowing Mangal's appeal against the May 3, 2025, order passed by the civil court at Alipore.

The case arose from a video uploaded on Mangal's “Trustified” channel on March 26, 2025. The video discussed laboratory reports that found Withanolide levels below the expected level and lead and mercury above the limits prescribed under the Ayurvedic Pharmacopoeia of India.

Emami sued Mangal for disparagement and slander of the product. The trial court subsequently passed an ex parte ad interim injunction restraining him from airing the video or publishing or speaking about the product in any media.

Mangal argued that the testing was conducted by accredited laboratories and that he had given Emami 24 hours to respond before publishing the results. The judgment records that Eurofins Analytical Services India Private Limited was an FSSAI-notified, NABL and IAS-accredited laboratory.

Emami relied on the product's Ayurvedic drug licence. It argued that the lead and mercury detected were residues of Swarna Bhasma and Yashad Bhasma, which were ingredients in the formulation.

The court held that the product could fall within three categories under the API: an Ayurvedic proprietary medicine, a herbo-metallic preparation and a formulation. It ruled that the product had to satisfy the lowest permissible heavy-metal limits applicable to these categories.

The bench noted that Emami's expert reports did not dispute the quantities of lead and mercury found by Mangal's laboratories. Instead, they sought to explain their presence as residues of Swarna Bhasma and Yashad Bhasma.

The court also observed that the expert opinions did not establish whether these ingredients neutralised the harmful effects of excessive lead and mercury.

On the expressions used in the video, the bench held that “Poison in a bottle” was followed by question marks and stimulated public inquiry into the possible health effects of the reported heavy metals. It held that “Cancerous” was used “in proper context” to alert consumers about the carcinogenic risk associated with excessive lead and mercury.

The bench applied the Bonnard principle, under which courts must exercise caution before restraining allegedly defamatory speech before trial. It held that an ex parte injunction should be granted only in exceptional cases where the defence would “undoubtedly fail at trial”.

The court found sufficient substance in Mangal's defence of truth. It also observed that the video appeared motivated more by educating the public about the possible effects of heavy metals than by commercial interest.

The appeal was allowed, and the injunction was set aside. The bench clarified that its observations were tentative and should not unduly influence the trial court at later stages of the suit.

The bench also refused Emami's request to stay the judgment, observing that a stay would revive the gag order.