In a decisive judgement, the Delhi High Court has permitted health and wellness leader Dr. Nikhil Himatsingka's product Bournvita that manages FoodPharmer to carry on what he describes as factual comments on the popular health drink Bournvita. However, the court did stick to its stand that Himatsingka should refrain from making any derogatory remarks about the product, for which the interim order dated October 15, 2023 continues to be in force.Background of the Case The case began with a video presentation of FoodPharmer, Dr. Nikhil Himatsingka, who posted in a series on social media against the nutritional content of the product of Mondelez India-Bournvita. His claims disputed the health benefits that were depicted along with high sugar content and ingredients he thought could not best be suitable for the children's health. Mondelez India went on to file a legal suit claiming that Himatsingka's videos were defamatory and further damaging the reputation of Bournvita. The Delhi High Court proceeded to issue an interim order on 15th October, restraining Himatsingka from releasing any disparaging remarks against Bournvita; although it did not place a demand for his videos to be taken off the online platforms immediately. Delhi High Court Ruling The Delhi High Court clarified the ambit of right to comment upon the product on part of Himatsingka in the clarification order. The Delhi High Court held that FoodPharmer can comment upon the factual information of Bournvita, including nutritional composition and health implications of ingredients in Bournvita, as long as such comments were based upon verifiable fact and not malice. The court, however, continues to maintain the interim order which bars Himatsingka from using language of disparagement or making any sort of defamatory statement that may harm the brand image of Bournvita. The business interests of Mondelez India are anything that may be possibly 'misleading' or 'pernicious'. The court balanced free speech with the protection of commercial interests. Although Himatsingka has a right to present factual comment, him doing so on matters that may give justifiable grounds for harming Bournvita's reputation is not allowed. Implications of the Judgment This judgment becomes precedent for how the courts will take over such cases involving freedom of speech, consumer rights, and corporate reputation. While it allows critics to let their opinions run loose under fact-based analysis and commentary on consumer products as a gateway to the public's right to know, it draws clear lines against defamatory and misleading content.