HC quashes case against Gambhir for Covid-time drug distribution

The complaint against Gambhir followed a direction from a division bench of the high court asking the agency to investigate individuals stocking and distributing medicines in violation of the Act.

The Delhi high court on Friday quashed a case against India cricket team head coach Gautam Gambhir and his foundation over the alleged unauthorised stocking and distribution of Fabiflu — a brand name for the antiviral drug favipiravir — during the second wave of Covid-19, ruling that the foundation’s actions were charitable, free of cost and undertaken to save lives during a public health emergency.

In his petition, Gambhir argued that the complaint was unjustified because he had distributed medicines free of cost and had not sold them for profit. He also said his family members had been named without basis. (HT Archive)

The Delhi Drugs Control Department (DDCD) had in July 2021 registered a complaint against Gambhir, his mother Seema, and wife Natasha, as well as the Gambhir Foundation and its CEO Aprajita Singh, for offences under Section 18(c) read with Section 27(b)(ii) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. The complaint followed a direction from a division bench of the high court asking the agency to investigate individuals stocking and distributing medicines in violation of the Act.

In his petition, Gambhir argued that the complaint was unjustified because he had distributed medicines free of cost and had not sold them for profit. He also said his family members had been named without basis.

A bench of justice Neena Bansal Krishna held that the medicines and oxygen cylinders were procured through valid channels, properly stored and kept in the same condition as acquired, with no allegation of tampering.

In her 31-page ruling, the judge said there had been no violation of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and that allowing prosecution in such circumstances would have a chilling effect by discouraging citizens and organisations from offering aid during public emergencies.

“The facts… clearly reflect that the petitioners, as conscious citizens, chose to use their means to extend a helping hand to people in distress… Their good-faith acts, at the time of need, do not bring home any commission of offence,” the court said.