Delhi HC suggests no legal basis for clean chit to Gautam Gambhir

Delhi’s Drug Control Department was heavily criticised on Monday by the Delhi High Court for clearing the way for BJP MP Gautam Gambhir by stating that his alleged distribution of the powerful anti-cocaine drug Covid-19 was not illegal. The court issued an order instructing the Drug Controller to provide a better status report by Thursday.

The court expressed its dissatisfaction with the report, saying it was not worth the paper it was written on. In other words, if your Drug Controller doesn’t want to do the job, we will ask that he be removed and replaced with someone who will do the job. what’s this investigation about? This is low-quality junk. At the resumed hearing of a case alleging illegal distribution of medicine by political leaders during the pandemic, the division bench of Justices Vipin Sanghi and Jasmeet Singh said, “There is no legal basis to it.”

According to the Drug Controller’s report, the Gautam Gambhir Foundation’s distribution of Fabiflu strips appears to be covered by an exception in the Drugs and Cosmetics Act because the drugs were given away during an event that was treated as a medical camp and was overseen by a doctor from Garg Hospital. According to section 5 of Schedule K of the Act, which was cited by the Drug Controller, it is legal for a medical practitioner to store and dispense his own medication at his place of business without having a drug licence.

It doesn’t make sense that such a large stock of medicine should be given to a non-medical practitioner Foundation. Even a doctor, physician, or other practitioner…could someone in a position of authority have gone to a supplier and said, “Send me 4000 strips of this medication”?” wondered the court.

The court questioned Additional Standing Counsel Nandita Rao: “Have you read the rules or have you simply accepted this status report prepared by them and placed it before us?”

The court stated that if it had been a medical camp, the distribution should have been done by the hospital instead. The court added: “Provided you can demonstrate that even the hospital is entitled to purchase items this large, you are permitted to proceed.”

The court also took exception to Gamhbir’s claim that he would repeat the same behaviour. People’s tendency to exploit a crisis in the city or country, then posture as saviours, which in actuality only causes further problems. These statements are misleading and need to be rejected,” it said.