In a significant turn of events in the ongoing brand disparagement suit filed by Reckitt Benckiser India, makers of Dettol antiseptic liquid, social media influencers Raj Shamani and Dr. Manjot Marwah have informed the Delhi High Court that they are willing to remove and edit content deemed “false, misleading and defamatory” about the product. The development marks a possible resolution to a controversy that erupted after a podcast episode and Instagram posts questioned the safety and usage of Dettol on human skin.
Background: The Disparaging Statements and Legal Fallout
The dispute arose from a podcast episode titled “Skin Mistakes You Didn’t Know! Tanning & Sunburn EXPOSED” released on April 1, 2025, where dermatologist Dr. Marwah, a well-known skincare influencer with over 783,000 Instagram followers, made controversial claims about Dettol antiseptic liquid. She reportedly stated that Dettol was merely a “floor cleaning liquid” and should not be used on human skin, alleging it *burns wounds and delays healing.
Her comments were further amplified when influencer Raj Shamani, known for his wide digital reach, posted a reel on April 5 titled “Never Use Dettol on Your Skin”, featuring clips from the podcast. This reel quickly went viral, sparking widespread debate and criticism.
Reckitt Benckiser responded swiftly with legal action, filing a civil suit before the Delhi High Court, alleging brand disparagement, defamation, and false advertising.
Delhi High Court Proceedings and Key Legal Developments
The matter came up before Justice Saurabh Banerjee of the Delhi High Court on April 8, 2025. During the hearing, both parties indicated a willingness to settle the matter amicably. Their counsels informed the Court that the influencers were ready to:
- Edit or remove the controversial segments in the podcast and social media posts.
- Not publish further disparaging material related to Dettol in the future.
- File a formal compromise application under Order 23 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), 1908.
Justice Banerjee recorded these statements and directed the parties to submit a formal application to record the compromise.
In the interim, the Court ordered:
- Shamani and Marwah to edit the video within 24 hours.
- Social media platforms to act in accordance with the settlement terms.
- Co-defendant Ritik Chaturvedi, who had reposted the reel, to refrain from sharing similar content. Chaturvedi informed the Court he had already taken down the reel.
Reckitt’s Arguments: Protecting a Trusted Household Brand
Reckitt, through Senior Advocate Chander M. Lall, made a strong case for protecting Dettol’s reputation, arguing that:
- Dettol has been marketed as an antiseptic since 1936 and is a licensed drug under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.
- The influencer claims were not only factually incorrect but also damaging to public trust in a product used in millions of households.
- Dr. Marwah’s reference to a Philippines FDA report was irrelevant, as Dettol is not even sold in that jurisdiction by Reckitt’s affiliates.
Lall emphasized that suggesting Dettol is only suitable for floors, and dangerous for human skin, is “blatantly false and slanderous.”
Influencers’ Response: “Olive Branch and White Flag”
Representing Shamani, Senior Advocate Satvik Varma informed the Court that his client had come with an “olive branch and a white flag,” willing to resolve the issue peacefully. He assured the Court that the controversial podcast content would be edited in accordance with Reckitt’s concerns.
Advocate Ramandeep Singh, appearing for Dr. Marwah, also confirmed that she had already deleted the Instagram reel in question and had no intention of publishing similar content.
The Legal Route: Order 23 Rule 3 CPC Explained
Order 23 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, provides for settlement of suits by lawful agreement or compromise. Once such a compromise is arrived at and filed with the Court, it can pass a consent decree, recording the agreed terms. This rule ensures that parties can resolve civil disputes amicably, without proceeding to a full trial.
In this case, the Court has kept the suit pending until a formal application under this rule is filed, after which the settlement terms can be officially recognized and enforced.
Brand Disparagement and Legal Risk for Influencers
This case highlights the growing legal scrutiny of social media content, especially where it involves opinions on regulated products like medicines, antiseptics, or cosmetics.
While influencers enjoy wide creative freedom, courts have increasingly held that:
- Influencers and content creators must exercise due diligence while making health or product-related claims.
- False or misleading content can amount to defamation and commercial disparagement under Indian law.
- Companies can seek injunctions, damages, and removal of content if brand reputation is unjustly harmed.
With over 750 million internet users in India, digital speech carries significant influence, and this case sets an example of how courts are balancing free expression with corporate rights.
Conclusion: A Lesson in Digital Responsibility
As this legal spat heads toward an amicable resolution, it underscores the importance of responsible digital content creation, especially by influencers with substantial followings. While freedom of speech is a cherished right, freedom must walk hand-in-hand with responsibility—especially when it involves public health products like antiseptics.
This episode is also a reminder to brands that swift legal recourse and a firm approach to reputation management are essential in the age of viral content.
With the Court now awaiting the formal compromise under CPC rules, the final settlement may not only close the legal chapter but also help set industry-wide standards for influencer accountability.
