By Anil Merani: The controversy surrounding Gaurav Khanna’s honey-dripping dessert on Celebrity MasterChef India has indeed spiraled beyond a culinary debate into a personal showdown, fueled by accusations from Swiss chef Josia Reichen and U.S.-based chef Aaron Clouse, both claiming ownership of the original concept. With Gaurav’s fans staunchly defending him and detractors branding him a cheat, the question of whether “copying” or “getting inspired” is acceptable in a reality show like CMC deserves a closer look—especially since the judges, Vikas Khanna and Ranveer Brar, heaped praise on Gaurav without apparently clocking the similarities.
The Scenario: What Went Down
Gaurav’s dessert—a meringue cone with honey dripping into a glass, featuring ginger caramel—wowed the judges in a recent episode airing around early April 2025. Vikas dropped his spoon in awe, and Ranveer called it “zinda hai, drop by drop,” signaling a standout moment. Yet, the dish’s viral promo caught the eye of Reichen, who sarcastically reposted it on Instagram with “Well done, so creative…” and later shared his own version, captioned “the original.” Clouse then chimed in, pointing to his 2021 dessert “The Bees Knees” as the true source. Fans and haters erupted: supporters highlighted Gaurav’s unique twist, while critics accused him of plagiarism, questioning why the judges didn’t spot it.
Is Inspiration Acceptable in CMC?
The Show’s Framework
Celebrity MasterChef doesn’t explicitly demand 100% original recipes unless a challenge states otherwise—and no evidence suggests this one did. Unlike professional chef competitions, CMC features celebrities who aren’t expected to be culinary innovators. The emphasis is on execution, creativity within the brief (here, incorporating ginger caramel), and presentation. Gaurav’s dish ticked these boxes, even if its visual hook echoed Reichen’s and Clouse’s work. Historically, MasterChef formats globally allow contestants to adapt existing recipes—think of how many contestants whip up a “deconstructed” classic without reinventing the wheel.
Celebrity Context
These aren’t Michelin-starred chefs; they’re TV personalities like Gaurav, Nikki Tamboli, and Tejasswi Prakash. They’re more likely to pull from recipes they’ve seen or practiced—especially under time pressure. Gaurav, fresh off Anupamaa, isn’t a pro cook; his strength lies in delivering a polished dish, not inventing a genre. The judges likely knew this and focused on what hit the plate, not its lineage.
Practicality
With CMC’s tight timelines, expecting a fully original recipe is a stretch. Contestants often lean on familiar frameworks, tweaking them to fit the challenge. Gaurav’s addition of ginger caramel and layered flavors shows adaptation, not a Xerox copy. Judges score the result—taste, look, skill—not a patent search.
Vikas doubles down on Gaurav’s support. Super chef Mr Khanna said the judges were impressed by Gaurav’s dish’s flavor and presentation rather than the recipe itself. He emphasized that getting inspired by other chefs and recreating their dishes in one’s own unique way is not necessarily a bad thing.
Ethical Gray Area
Inspiration vs. Copying
Cooking thrives on inspiration. Reichen’s dessert might’ve inspired Gaurav (or whoever prepped him—contestants often get coaching), but it’s not identical. Reichen’s and Clouse’s versions differ from each other too—honey-dripping isn’t patented. Gaurav didn’t replicate every ingredient or technique, just the visual gimmick. Ethically, it’s shaky only if he claimed it was wholly his brainchild without a nod to the trend. We don’t know what he said on air—editing might’ve cut any disclaimer.
Credit Where It’s Due
The ethical gold standard is transparency: “I saw this cool idea and made it my own.” Gaurav’s silence (so far) fuels the fire—fans say he doesn’t need to explain, haters demand he “come clean.” But in a reality show, where drama trumps footnotes, contestants rarely cite sources unless prompted. The judges didn’t ask, and the format doesn’t care—unlike, say, a cookbook where attribution is king.
Judges’ Role
Vikas and Ranveer’s effusive praise for Gaurav’s dessert has raised questions—shouldn’t they, as culinary experts, have noticed the resemblance? Perhaps not. They’re judging in real-time, not Researching dessert history. Their focus is on the dish’s impact, not its origins. Plus, meringue-dripping concepts aren’t new—Vikas himself noted on Instagram Stories that it’s a decades-old technique. They might’ve seen Gaurav’s version as a fresh spin, not a rip-off, especially with his flavor tweaks. Their role in this controversy is significant, as their judgment carries weight in the culinary world.
Public Perception and the Personal Turn
The debate’s gone personal because of Gaurav’s image—fans see him as a hardworking underdog, haters as a “cheap copycat” (as one X user put it). Reichen’s sarcasm and Clouse’s claim amplified the noise, turning a kitchen moment into a character trial. Supporters argue it’s just cooking, not a PhD thesis; critics say it’s cheating if uncredited. Viewers often forgive “borrowing” if the dish slaps and the contestant owns it—Gaurav’s did, but his silence hasn’t.
Conclusion: Acceptable, With Caveats
In CMC, “copying” or “inspiration” is fine if:
The rules don’t ban it (they don’t seem to).
The contestant adds their own flair (Gaurav did).
The dish delivers (it wowed the judges).
Ethically, Gaurav’s in the clear unless he baldly lied about inventing it—a detail lost to editing. The backlash is more about optics than culinary sin; he could’ve dodged it by saying, “I saw this somewhere and ran with it.” Cooking’s iterative—Reichen and Clouse might’ve borrowed too—so the “original creator” fight is murky. Gaurav’s not obligated to confess for his “image’s sake,” but a nod to his muses would’ve kept it classy. As for the judges, they’re not plagiarism cops—they’re tasting, not tracing.
PS: I can’t help but wonder what Gaurav ‘s CMC Bête noire” Nikki Tamboli’s take on the whole matter would be.