Did the Delhi HC Dismiss Charges Against Gautam Gambhir and His Family for COVID Drug Hoarding?
Click to start listening
Synopsis
The Delhi High Court has quashed the criminal proceedings against Gautam Gambhir and his family, who faced allegations of hoarding COVID-19 drugs. The ruling emphasizes the charitable nature of their actions, providing relief amid the pandemic's challenges. This decision could also impact related prosecutions against former AAP MLAs.
Key Takeaways
- The Delhi HC dismissed the case against Gautam Gambhir and his family.
- The ruling emphasizes the Foundation's charitable role during the pandemic.
- Legal proceedings were based on allegations of unauthorized drug distribution.
- The outcome may influence related prosecutions against other political figures.
New Delhi, Nov 21 (NationPress) On Friday, the Delhi High Court dismissed the criminal proceedings against the Gautam Gambhir Foundation and its trustees regarding claims of unauthorized stocking and distribution of COVID-19 medications during the pandemic's second wave. A single-judge Bench led by Justice Neena Bansal Krishna approved the petitions from the Foundation, former cricketer and present India head coach Gautam Gambhir, along with family members, nullifying both the criminal complaint and the summons from the Metropolitan Magistrate.
“Complaint case quashed,” declared Justice Krishna as she announced the ruling. The comprehensive judgment is pending.
The proceedings had initially been put on hold in September 2021 but were resumed this year after the interim protection was lifted.
The petitioners contended that the Foundation had acquired medicines from authorized suppliers and distributed them free of charge in medical camps during the peak of the pandemic. They emphasized that there were no allegations of sale, profiteering, or diversion of essential drugs, asserting the initiative was entirely charitable.
It was argued that the criminal complaint was based on incorrect assumptions despite the Delhi High Court’s instruction that the Drug Controller should prosecute only those responsible for obstructing the supply chain of COVID-19 medications.
The prosecution, following an inquiry by the Drugs Control Department, claimed that the Foundation and its members illegally obtained Favipiravir (FabiFlu) and other COVID-19 medications without the necessary licenses, breaching the Drugs and Cosmetics Act of 1940.
The Drugs Controller had previously informed the High Court that the Foundation was guilty of unauthorized procurement.
The trial court then acknowledged the case and summoned Gambhir, his wife Natasha, his mother Seema, and officials from the Foundation.
In 2021, when the Foundation sought redress from the Supreme Court regarding these proceedings, the apex court declined to intervene and instructed it to seek relief from the Delhi High Court, noting: “People were scrambling for medicines. Suddenly, a trust states it will distribute drugs. This is unacceptable.”
The Delhi High Court’s decision is anticipated to positively influence the concurrent prosecutions against two former Aam Aadmi Party MLAs, Praveen Kumar and Imran Hussain, for similar allegations of hoarding COVID-19 medications during the crisis.
Point of View
It's essential to recognize the legal vindication of Gautam Gambhir and his family. This case underscores the challenges faced by individuals and organizations striving to contribute positively during a crisis. The court's decision illuminates the importance of context in accusations, reinforcing our commitment to fair reporting.
NationPress
21/11/2025
Frequently Asked Questions
What was the outcome of the Delhi High Court ruling?
The Delhi High Court quashed the criminal proceedings against the Gautam Gambhir Foundation and its trustees, dismissing the allegations of unauthorized stocking and distribution of COVID-19 drugs.
What were the allegations against Gautam Gambhir and his Foundation?
They faced allegations of hoarding COVID-19 medications without the required licenses and distributing them unlawfully during the pandemic.
What is the significance of the High Court's ruling?
The ruling emphasizes the charitable actions of the Foundation during a critical time and may positively affect related cases against other political figures.
What did the petitioners argue in court?
The petitioners argued that the Foundation sourced medicines from licensed vendors and distributed them for free, highlighting the charitable nature of their efforts.
How might this ruling impact other ongoing cases?
The ruling could set a precedent that may influence the outcomes of parallel prosecutions against other individuals accused of similar actions during the pandemic.
