Chhattisgarh Police File Closure Report in FIR Against Ramdev for Allopathy Remarks, Supreme Court Adjourns Plea

NEW DELHI – In a significant development in the ongoing legal battle involving Patanjali Ayurved founder Swami Ramdev, the Supreme Court was informed today that Chhattisgarh Police have filed a closure report in the First Information Report (FIR) lodged against him for his controversial remarks on allopathic medicine during the COVID-19 pandemic. The disclosure potentially alters the landscape of Ramdev's plea seeking to club multiple FIRs filed across the country.

The matter was heard by a bench comprising Justices MM Sundresh and Satish Chandra Sharma. Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta, representing the government, apprised the Court of the closure. This leaves only one known FIR pending against the yoga guru in Bihar concerning the same set of allegations.

Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave, appearing for Swami Ramdev, urged the bench to formally record the SG's statement about the closure in its order. However, the bench opined that with the Chhattisgarh case effectively closed, Ramdev’s primary prayer for clubbing the FIRs may no longer be tenable, as only a single case remains active.

Despite this, the proceedings highlighted the intricate procedural hurdles that persist. Mr. Dave raised a critical legal apprehension: the potential for the case to be resurrected. He argued that the complainant in the Chhattisgarh matter could file a protest petition challenging the police's closure report, which, if allowed by the magistrate, could reopen the entire investigation. Citing this possibility, he requested that the Court ascertain the status of the Bihar FIR before finally disposing of the writ petition.

Adding another layer to the hearing, SG Tushar Mehta made a pointed remark, suggesting that the FIRs in both Chhattisgarh and Bihar were "obviously" lodged by "sponsored" persons, implying a coordinated or malicious campaign against his client's interests.

After considering the arguments, the Supreme Court bench decided to adjourn the matter, allowing time to clarify the status of the remaining FIR.

Background of the Controversy and Legal Challenges

The case, Swami Ram Dev v. Union of India & Ors. (Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 265 of 2021), stems from a viral video circulated in 2021 at the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic's second wave. In the video, Swami Ramdev was heard claiming that "lakhs of people have died after taking 'allopathic' medicines for COVID-19." He also made other disparaging comments about modern medicine and its practitioners.

These remarks sparked widespread outrage from the medical community, leading to the filing of multiple criminal complaints against him under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Disaster Management Act, 2005. The Indian Medical Association (IMA) and other doctors' associations were at the forefront of the condemnation, accusing Ramdev of spreading dangerous misinformation during a national health crisis.

Faced with the prospect of defending himself in multiple jurisdictions, Ramdev approached the Supreme Court seeking the consolidation and transfer of all FIRs to Delhi, protection from coercive action, and the eventual quashing of the proceedings. He argued that the FIRs were a result of a vindictive campaign driven by personal and political motives.

Judicial Scrutiny and Prior Observations

This is not the first time Ramdev's statements have come under judicial scrutiny. The broader conflict between Patanjali's claims and the established medical system has been playing out in various courts.

In a related matter in August 2022, the Supreme Court, while hearing a petition by the Indian Medical Association against an alleged "smear campaign," had sternly admonished Swami Ramdev. The then Chief Justice of India, N.V. Ramana, had questioned his criticism of modern medicine, stating, "Why is Baba Ramdev accusing allopathy doctors? He popularised yoga. Good. But he should not criticise other systems."

Similarly, the Delhi High Court, in a separate suit filed by doctors' associations, had also cautioned Ramdev to refrain from making misleading claims about allopathy and from promoting Patanjali's 'Coronil' as a cure for COVID-19 without scientific validation.

Legal Analysis: Closure Reports, Protest Petitions, and Clubbing of FIRs

The latest development brings several key aspects of criminal procedure into focus for legal practitioners.

• Effect of a Closure Report: A closure report, filed by the police under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), signifies the conclusion of their investigation, stating that no evidence or insufficient evidence was found to proceed with a prosecution. However, it is not the final word. The magistrate has several options: accept the report and close the case, reject the report and take cognizance of the offence, or order a further investigation.

• The Potency of a Protest Petition: As rightly pointed out by Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave, the informant or victim has the right to file a "protest petition" if they are aggrieved by the closure report. This petition is treated as a complaint, and the magistrate can take cognizance under Section 190(1)(a) of the CrPC if a prima facie case is made out. This procedural safeguard ensures that the police's findings are not absolute and are subject to judicial review, but it also creates uncertainty for the accused, as proceedings can be revived.

• The Prayer for Clubbing FIRs: The Supreme Court's power to club FIRs, often exercised under Article 32 or Article 142 of the Constitution, is rooted in the principle of preventing multiplicity of proceedings and harassment to the accused when the allegations stem from the same "cause of action." With the closure of the Chhattisgarh FIR, the bench's view that the prayer for clubbing is infructuous is legally sound, as there is nothing left to "club" with the sole remaining Bihar FIR. Ramdev's legal team may now need to pivot their strategy to focus solely on seeking the quashing of the Bihar case on its individual merits.

The SG's comment on "sponsored" FIRs, while not a formal legal argument, hints at a defense strategy focused on mala fides . If the defense can substantiate that the complaints were filed with malicious intent rather than genuine grievance, it could be a powerful argument in a quashing petition under Section 482 of the CrPC before the relevant High Court.

As the matter stands adjourned, the legal community will keenly watch the next steps, particularly the final status of the Bihar FIR and whether the complainant in Chhattisgarh will indeed challenge the closure report. The case remains a prominent example of the ongoing tension between freedom of expression, the regulation of public health information, and the procedural complexities of the Indian criminal justice system.