Delhi High Court Issues Summons On Medical Association's Suit Against Ramdev Baba,Refuses Interim Relief

A single judge bench of Justice C Hari Shankar today issued summons to Patanjali Ayurved's Ramdev Baba, Twitter Inc, Facebook Inc, Google LLC, and Vedic Broadcasting Ltd on a suit by the Delhi Medical Association (DMA) seeking to restrain Ramdev from "disseminating false statements and false information in respect of Patanjali Ayurved's Coronil." DMA also alleged that Ramdev through his statements against medical science and doctors in general is harming the Association and "indirectly affecting public interest" in the midst of the Covid-19 pandemic, and sought interim relief against the same. However, the court refused to grant DMA any interim relief stating that it would first hear the suit on the issue of maintainability and preliminary objections raised by Ramdev's counsel, Sr. Adv. Rajiv Nayar.The court also noted the oral submission by Nayar on behalf of Ramdev, that he has already retracted the statements and apologized for the same on May 23, however, this was not pointed out by DMA during the hearing, implying that he would not make any more of such statements until the next date of hearing, which is the first day after the ensuing Summer Vacations of the court. Nature of the Suit – Whether falling under S.91 Civil Procedure Code, 1908At the outset and subsequently at length, the nature of the suit was argued upon in the hearing to establish whether the pleadings and arguments made by DMA could fall under S.91 CPC or a public interest litigation.Section.91 - 1[Public nuisances and other wrongful acts affecting the public] [(1) in the case of a public nuisance or other wrongful act affecting, or likely to affect, the public, a suit for a declaration and injunction or for such other relief as may be appropriate in the circumstances of the case, may be instituted,- (a) by the Advocate General, or (b) with the leave of the Court, by two or more persons, even though no special damage has been caused to such persons by reason of such public nuisance or other wrongful act.] (2) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect any right of suit which may exist independently of its provisions.The court enquired of Sr. Adv. Dutta appearing for DMA, whether this was a S.91 suit, given the nature of the pleadings and arguments, saying, "First of all your suit is all over the place. You please tell us under which civil law provision you have filed this suit? We are in the regime of CPC, this is not A.226. Firstly, you establish your locus." Upon Dutta's denial that this was a S.91 suit, the court went on to take the statement on record and further enquired if the suit was "espousing the public in any way", to which Dutta replied, "Yes my Lords, because the wrong to me indirectly affects the public."The DMA agreed that the suit indirectly affected the public, however, impressed upon the court that it fell under S.91, whereas, Ramdev argued that the suit was in the nature of a S.91 litigation, given all its pleadings and arguments and therefore should have adhered with the protocol for filing of such a suit. Nayar on behalf of Ramdev also began his arguments stating that the suit was not one for defamation, which the court pointed out during the course of the hearing when Dutta submitted orally that the entire medical profession and doctors were being insulted by Ramdev's statements.Nayar further raised the objection that the protocol of S.91 required the "leave of the court" for its filing, which was mandatory, and in the present case the same was not sought – therefore the suit was not maintainable.On the issue, the court held, "It appears from the reading of the plaint and averments that it attracts S.91(1) CPC. Sr. Adv. Nayar has raised preliminary objections to maintainability on the ground that leave of the Court is mandatory as held in the Muddaiah case. While Mr. Dutta has argued that a token damages of Re. 1 has been sought so it will not fall under S.91. I am not inclined to accept this position. Where public interest has been argued S.91 will be invoked."Article 19(1)(a) While Dutta argued that, Ramdev is "making public statements that medical science is fake in the middle of the pandemic," which "is harming public interest", the court questioned him whether these statements would be protected under Art. 19(1)(a) of the Constitution which protects and guarantees the freedom of speech and expression. Justice Shankar remarked, "First of all there is something called A.19(1)(a). It's an opinion which has been expressed," adding, "Anyone can say any science is fake. Suppose I make a statement that Homeopathy is fake. Can the associations of homeopaths come to sue me? You can't put shackles on these things." "This is just a tentative opinion I'm stating that such statements have to be checked against the anvil of A.19(1)(a). The long and short of it is that Swami Ramdev does not have much faith in the allopathic system. He believes everything can be cured by yoga and Ayurveda. There ...

Delhi High Court Issues Summons On Medical Association's Suit Against Ramdev Baba,Refuses Interim Relief

Shreya

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Delhi High Court Issues Summons On Medical Association's Suit Against Ramdev Baba,Refuses Interim Relief

Shreya

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers