On Monday 8th October supreme court issued a notice against yoga guru baba Ram dev’s and the founder of Patanjali Ayurveda for the protection against coercive action in criminal proceeding initiated against him for his alleged remarks that questioning the efficiency of modern medicine like remdesivir and fabiflu and connecting them with COVID 19 deaths.
Supreme court’s senior advocate Siddharth Dave appearing for baba, argued that his comments about allopathy medicines did not amount to any offence under the Indian penal code or any other act. “He may not believe in a particular form of medicines or a form of science. This may also offend the doctors practicing the form of medicine. But no offence is made out. He also withdrew the statement the next day.” The senior counsel told the bench.
Justice Sundresh said “Do you want to quash the FIR or consolidate them? You cannot have both. If you want to quash, the remedy lies in a different forum,”
In reply Dave relied on the decision in Arnab Goswami, to contend that a petition against multiple criminal proceedings in different states resulting from a single statement can be filed in the supreme court.
On the contrary, Senior Advocate PS Patwalia representing the Indian Medical Association, raised objection regarding the prayers in the petition- “one complaint is in Patna and another is in Raipur the cause of action are different but he has asked them to be clubbed and transferred to the New Delhi. But no criminal proceeding are ongoing in New Delhi. The next prayer is to quash a list of complaints. Those complaints are not on the record. One or two have been filed, but others do not exist. His petition is similar to the statement he has made.
Written by- Anmol Kashyap
College name- City Law College
Semester- 3rd year 5th Semester an Intern under Legal Vidhiya
0 Comments