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, 1908

At 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 are institutions to check such claims. I am not here to check whether Coronil can cure Corona, can't cure Corona."

The Court said, "That is not the arena of a civil court. We can't supplement what the government is doing. Though he may have used words like stupid, he could've used some other words."

PIL or Suit?

Seeking to highlight the severity of the statements, Dutta argued, "Firstly, they have falsely claimed that Coronil completely cures Covid-19," which itself was "a very grave thing", "the fact that in the middle of the Covid-19 pandemic he's screaming from the rooftops that Coronil is a cure." Dutta added that it is not merely the DMA but the Ministry itself has asked Patanjali Ayurveda "to stop advertising Coronil as a cure."

The court then said that it was the prerogative of the Ministry to take action if Patanjali was found to be making false claims, to which Dutta replied that the statements are "hurting the cure by other doctors for Covid-19."

Upon the court's query as to how this was resulting from the statements, Dutta said that it was resulting in the violation of the Covid-19 treatment protocol given by the Ministry itself. Dutta said, "First he tried to show that it is a cure, but when he was opposed by the Ministry, he said, "No, no, it's not a cure."

Pointing out that this served DMA's interest, the court questioned what relief they now wanted, to which Dutta replied that Patanjali Ayurved had sold Coronil kits worth Rs.250 cr in the time period between the two statements, and that due to his "mass following," "when he makes these statements he's affecting public interest."

Catching on to the admission the court said, "This is a PIL masquerading as a suit! The whole essence of your arguments is that the public has been misled. For that the relevant provision is S.91." The Court added, "Assuming Coronil is not a cure and public interest is harmed, for that there is a provision in CPC, under S.92 in which you are supposed to move according to specific procedures. Please understand this is not a PIL. You could've filed a PIL, and all these arguments would have been available to you. But you haven't. Under provisions of CPC we have restraints, we can't pass expansive orders like in PILs."

Statements By Ramdev Filed By DMA

Dutta highlighted before the court that Ramdev has at different times made statements, saying, "Lakhs of people have died due to allopathy", "It is an amazing farce", etc. Dutta continued, "He's saying it's because medicines doctors have given. He says we are stupid, and that it's on insolvent science. We are called warriors today, why? 600 doctors have died."

On Dutta's submission that, "The strong words he is using are not defamatory alone. We are together being insulted. He is defaming us," the Court pointed out, "Mr. Dutta, this is not a defamation suit. You have not claimed defamation or pleading it."

The court will next be hearing the matter post the summer vacations.

Ramdev was represented by Sr. Adv. Rajiv Nayar, along with Simranjeet Singh, Partner, and Mizan Siddique, Associate from Athena Legal