"You Want Us To Shut Our Eyes. You Can't Take Us For a Ride": Delhi HC Pulls Up Drug Controller For Dissatisfactory Probe Against Gautam Gambhir For Hoarding Covid Drugs

"You want us to shut our eyes. You can't take is for a ride. If you think we are so gullible, we are naive, we'll give you back hard. You better do your job." remarked the Delhi High Court on Monday while pulling up the Drug Controller of the Delhi Government for its "dissatisfactory inquiry/Investigation" in the matter concerning hoarding of covid drugs by Gautam Gambhir and AAP MLA Praveen Kumar.

Visibly dissatisfied division bench comprising of Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Jasmeet Singh remarked thus:

"We don't expect you to appear for the person concerned. We make it clear, we will not accept such frivolous arguments. Here is a man who is hoarding thousands of strips of medicines and we don't know for what consideration. This shows he purchased without any basis. He is interrupting the flow of medicines."

Furthermore, the Bench went ahead to state:

"If you're here for the drug controller, argue for the drug controller. Please don't tell us there was no shortage. We know there was a shortage. You have to question the Authority. If it's coming under your pen, you better be ready to answer every question."

In view of this, while rejecting the status report filed in the matter, the Bench directed the Drug Controller to file fresh status reports with regards to the probe against Gautam Gambhir and AAP MLA Praveen Kumar by Thursday.

During the course of hearing, ASC Nandita Rao appearing for the Drug Controller, GNCTD apprised the Court about the status report filed in the matter pertaining to Gautam Gambhir and submitted thus:

"It has not been procured for one source but it has come from various dealers. It has not interfered with dealers purchase. From 22nd to 29th April, depending on no of patients coming in the camp, some assessment was probably made."

Being dissatisfied with the submissions made, Justice Vipin Sanghi orally remarked thus:

"How is it relevant for a dealer to sell it to a foundation? Medicines were sold to the foundation, that is what you have concluded?"

He further asked Rao as to how could such a large stock be given to a foundation which is not a medical practitioner. Lashing out on the Drug Controller, Justice Sanghi remarked:

"Have you taken the trouble of going to the rules or have you just gone through the report and came before us. This status report is not worth the paper its written on. We reject it. This is trash. There is no legal basis to it."

"The tendency of people taking advantage and trying to appear as a savior needs to be denounced. If this happens again. We know how to deal with it. But the gentleman has to realise. You need to be mindful of the strips you're taking. What is the good, what are the pitfalls, there are always two sides of the coins. Thousands of needy people who could have got these medicines were not able to do so. 286 strips are left which shows that he procured more than what was required. You want us to shut our eyes. You can't take is for a ride. If you think we are so gullible, we are naive, we'll give you back hard. You better do your job. We will have you suspended and let someone else do your job." The bench went ahead to remark.

During the course of hearing, Mr. KR Chawla, Assistant Drug Controller of the GNCTD made submissions before the Court and requested the bench to grant some days time to file a fresh status report in the matter.

Being dissatisfied with the approach of the drug controller, the Court remarked thus:

"There is a fundamental flaw in the manner you have approached the whole issue. You haven't done any exercise on the aspect of as to how such a large consignment of drug was supplied to the foundation which wasn't a dealer. Your approach is that the man has saved thousands of persons otherwise they would have gone without medicine. Is this your concern?"

In view of this, the Court recorded the submissions of the parties and ordered thus:

"At the outset, we observed that no documents have been filed with status report. In respect of the status report relating to Preeti Tomar MLA, we are satisfied and accept this report. However, in respect of status reports relating to Gautam Gambhir and Praveen Kumar MLA, we're completely dissatisfied and it appears that the drug Controller has not appreciated the legal aspects. For instance, it is not examined as to how the Gautam Gambhir Foundation could have procured the drug Fabiflu etc from the Licensed dealers or retailers."

Noting that certain factual contradictions in the reports filed by Delhi Police and drug controller have not been addressed, the Court went ahead to direct counsel for the petitioner (Advocate Virag Gupta) and Advocate Ranjan Swain (for MLA Preeti Tomar) to file during the course of the day, a statement on the factual contradictions.

On the assurance given by the Drug Controller, the Court directed thus:

"They have assured the court that they shall file a better status report after taking into account the factual contradictions and legal provisions. Let the same be done positively by Thursday morning. Status report shall be circulated to counsel for petitioner and Mr. Swain and to the amicus. List on Thursday."

The matter will now be heard on June 3.

The development came after the Court had recently directed the Drug Controller to conduct inquiry or investigation into three specific allegations against BJP MP Gautam Gambhir and AAP MLAs Preeti Tomar and Praveen Kumar for hoarding and illegally stocking covid 19 medicines and drugs.

The bench was dealing with a plea seeking registration of FIRs against leaders of political parties indulging in hoarding and illegally distributing covid 19 medicines denying the access to the said medicines to the public at large.

During the course of previous hearing, Justice Sanghi remarked thus:

"Mr. Gautam Gambhir must have done it to genuinely help the needy people. Let us be clear about it. But the issue is, is that a responsible behaviour? Should he not have realised that Medicines are in shortage for others. When people were not getting medicines, should he not have thought about this? Many people would have suffered because of this. This was no way."

Furthermore, Justice Sanghi also went ahead to remark thus:

"He might have not done it with that intention but this is not to be done. The way he has gone about it, he has done a disservice. This wasn't the way certainly."

"Even with the best of intentions, they are malpractices. In our society, we can't permit this." Remarked Justice Sanghi.