The Delhi High Court has declined to entertain a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging Congress politician Navjot Singh Sidhu’s social media posts regarding his wife’s recovery from Stage 4 cancer through a diet regime and Ayurveda. The Court upheld Sidhu’s right to freedom of speech, emphasizing that such opinions cannot be curtailed.
Key Highlights: Delhi High Court’s Decision on Navjot Singh Sidhu’s Posts
1. The PIL and Its Demands
- The Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenged Congress leader Navjot Singh Sidhu’s social media posts about his wife’s Stage 4 cancer recovery through Ayurveda and a diet regime.
- The petitioner sought:
- Scientific validation of Sidhu’s claims.
- Temporary removal of his posts from platforms like X and Meta.
- Medical records proving the alleged recovery.
- Guidelines for regulating unverified medical claims on social media.
2. Court’s Observations
- Freedom of Speech:
- The Court emphasized that Sidhu was expressing a personal opinion, protected under his right to free speech.
- Chief Justice Manmohan stated:
“He is just voicing his opinion. It is his freedom of speech. You counter his claims by your free speech.”
- Choice to Ignore:
- The Bench pointed out that the public has the choice to ignore opinions they disagree with, stating:
“There are books that are bad, you don’t have to read them. Don’t read them, who is asking you?”
- The Bench pointed out that the public has the choice to ignore opinions they disagree with, stating:
3. Decision to Withdraw
- Following the Court’s remarks, the petitioner chose to withdraw the PIL.
4. Wider Implications
- The Court reiterated the importance of balancing freedom of speech with public responsibility, stressing that misinformation concerns should be addressed through existing mechanisms rather than imposing restrictions on free expression.
- Examples from Precedents:
The Court drew analogies to previous PILs, emphasizing that individuals are free to ignore content they disagree with, just as they can choose not to watch a TV show or read a book.
5. Withdrawal of PIL
- After the Court’s remarks, the petitioner withdrew the PIL.
Court’s Position on Freedom of Speech
The Delhi High Court upheld Navjot Singh Sidhu’s right to freedom of speech in its judgment dismissing the PIL. The Court emphasized the fundamental right to express personal opinions, even if controversial, and highlighted the need to counter such views through dialogue rather than suppression.
1. Emphasis on Free Expression
- Chief Justice Manmohan stated:
“He is just voicing his opinion. It is his freedom of speech. You counter his claims by your free speech. We believe in freedom of speech in this country.”
- Justice Tushar Rao Gedela added:
“He (Sidhu) is not asking you to follow it. He is just saying this is what he did.”
2. Choice to Ignore
The Court reminded the petitioner and the public that they are free to ignore opinions they disagree with, using a relatable example:
“There are books that are bad; you don’t have to read them. Don’t read them, who is asking you?”
3. No Overreach by the Court
- The Bench maintained that it is not within the Court’s domain to police individual expressions unless they violate laws.
- The Chief Justice remarked:
“We have a proper mechanism to deal with such cases. We cannot put fear of contempt on freedom of speech.”
4. Balance of Rights and Responsibility
- While supporting Sidhu’s right to express his views, the Court highlighted the petitioner’s freedom to counter his claims through their own speech.
- The judgment serves as a reminder of the balance between free expression and responsible communication, particularly in matters of public health.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court’s decision reaffirms the freedom of speech while emphasizing the role of counter-narratives and public discernment in addressing unverified claims. The Court encouraged the petitioner to explore other avenues for addressing concerns about health misinformation.
By Shehnaz Shaikh
For more legal updates, visit Vistatimes.com.