Delhi HC rejects Baba Ramdev's clarification on Coronil as cure for COVID-19
The plea submitted that the statements given by Ramdev influence the public at large and thereby divert them from opting for allopathy treatment which is prescribed as a standard form of care even by the Government since he is an influential person.
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has rejected the proposed clarification Baba Ramdev and other defendants in a suit which was filed earlier by several doctors' associations against yoga guru Ramdev for allegedly spreading misinformation by his statements against allopathy amid the COVID-19 pandemic and for claiming that his company, Patanjali's drug, Coronil could be used as a cure for COVID-19.
The bench of Justice Anup J. Bhambhani observed that the clarification given by Ramdev and the party seemed "more like pat" on his own back.
The court was hearing a petition which was moved last year Resident Doctors Association, All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), Rishikesh, and a number of other doctors' associations who alleged that Ramdev was causing misrepresentation to the public at large by spreading misinformation saying that allopathy was responsible for COVID-19 deaths and prompting people to not get hospitalized, while simultaneously marketing Coronil as a cure for COVID-19.
Medical Dialogues team had earlier reported about the summons issued by the Delhi High Court to Ramdev on a lawsuit by several doctors' associations for allegedly spreading misinformation against allopathy amid the COVID-19 pandemic, saying that the plea was not frivolous and a case for its institution was "definitely" made out.
The associations which had moved the plea include the Three Resident Doctors Association of All India Institute of Medical Sciences at Rishikesh, Patna, and Bhubaneswar; Association of Resident Doctors, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research Chandigarh; Resident Doctors Association Lala Lajpat Rai Memorial Medical College, Meerut; Telangana Junior Doctors Association, Hyderabad; Union of Resident Doctors of Punjab. The plea alleged that Baba Ramdev's statement was creating doubt about not only allopathic treatment but also other COVID-19 vaccines.
The plea submitted that the statements given by Ramdev influence the public at large and thereby divert them from opting for allopathy treatment which is prescribed as a standard form of care even by the Government since he is an influential person, reports the Live Law.
While hearing the case in July this year, the defendants, Patanjali and Ramdev had informed the court that they were willing to offer clarifications addressing the issue and had stated that a mutually agreed text of the clarifications would be drawn up and presented before the court. The court had also directed the two parties to come up with the said clarifications together, observing that if it is accepted, the defendants would have to file an affidavit regarding the clarifications offered, followed by their publication in print, electronic and digital media to ensure requisite dissemination of the clarifications to the public at large.
The counsel appearing for Ramdev, Senior Advocate PV Kapur put forth the proposed clarification stating that the same was based on the notification issued by the Ayush Ministry. Kapur noted, "I really don't know why this is turning out to be a battle on the drug and for some reason, even fair suggestion is not being accepted. It seems like litigation on the other side seems to be a motivated sort of litigation. We have tendered an apology for what was said about the allopathic doctors. We have retracted, it's been tweeted and published."
Stating that there has been a lot of misinformation, misinterpretation, and misunderstanding regarding Ramdev's statement about Coronil, the draft clarification issued by them read, "It is categorically and expressly clarified that the product Coronil apart from being an immunity booster, especially against respiratory tract involvement and for all types of fever, is additionally an evidence-based supporting measure for management of Covid-19." Further, the draft observed that the product was launched after strict adherence to the protocols and standards, followed by due compliance with requirements.
The draft read, "In view of the same, Coronil was tested on symptomatic Covid-19 patients which resulted in the successful recovery of all such patients. It is in this backdrop that Coronil was said to be a cure. However, it was later clarified that Coronil is only a supplementary measure for Covid-19 and not a cure."
After reading the draft clarification prepared by Ramdev's legal team, the court remarked that the clarification "seems to be more like a pat on the back…on the defendant's back. This is like a disclaimer, rather than a clarification." When advocate Kapur said that the defendants were open to modifications in the proposed clarification and insisted on taking the Court through the notification issued by the Ayush Ministry, the court observed, "You gave the public two impressions. One is that allopathic doctors don't have a cure, they are themselves dying of the disease. Two, that coronil itself is a treatment and cure." Further, it said, "The idea is to be clear in your communication. Words have to express the thought, not conceal it. Look at the way it's drafted, the thought, if there is bona fide thought, then it's concealed."
"The difficulty is, nobody is going by what the Ministry says, so far as the public perception is concerned. The public is not opening the Ministry website and reading it. That's not to be clarified. What the Ministry says it says. That's not subject of interest to the public," said the court.
Meanwhile, alleging that the suit was motivated by litigation which was being financed by somebody, Kapur argued, "I don't even know whether these doctors are working anywhere or not, what is the motive behind all this," adding, "o my mind this litigation is clearly motivated. It's not a genuine concern of these young doctors. There has to be somebody financing this litigation. This is something which has to be kept in mind."
However, responding to Kapur, Senior Advocate Akhil Sibal appearing for the plaintiffs called the allegations as 'vague imputations' noting, "Please answer the facts, answer the documents. Let us go to merits. They (defendants) will have their turn. They will persuade your lordships if we're wrong. But we can't tie it up in these kinds of prejudicial remarks." Sibal stated that there is still a tab on the Patanjali website which claims coronil product to be a treatment for COVID-19. Calling the claims of Coronil to be false, he argued, "This is false. You're telling it's a treatment. I'll show from documents that this is false, it betrays their intent. None of this is certified by any authority in the Country."
But Kapur responded that the product was licensed after following the requirements of the Ayush Ministry, on being tested on Covid patients and approval with scientific standards as approved by the Ayush Ministry as well as the Medical Council.
Stating that the press release handed over by the defendants was "factually misleading", Sibal argued, "This is a justification which is false. It's not an evidence-based license, the authority says that we don't accept your evidence and studies. So no authority in this country….the authority says we have not licensed it as a treatment of covid."
The court observed that there was an attempt to draw up a clarification that would address the issues in the suit but the efforts did not fructify. Justice Bhambhani pointed out various issues with the proposed statement, reports the Wire. The bench stated, "See the point is, it has to be shorn of unnecessary verbiage and nuances. You gave the public two impressions: one is that allopathic doctors don't have a cure and two that Coronil is the cure and treatment… You cannot say it is a supplementary measure… The idea is to be clear in your communication. Words have to express thought. If there is bona fide thought, then it has been concealed in this clarification."
The court held that the matter has acquired a sense of emergency considering the fact that more cases are being reported and any confusion in the mind of the public deserves to be addressed as soon as possible. The court said, "Mr Kapur assures the Court that he would make another attempt to come up with an appropriate and acceptable draft clarification, that plaintiffs may consider for acceptance. In order to afford the parties to attempt a mutually acceptable clarification, in the light of ingredients sought to be incorporated in the communication sent by the plaintiffs, renotify on August 17."
The court has scheduled the next date of hearing on August 17 that if no agreed clarification is brought by then between the two parties, they would proceed to hear the case on merit.
