The Delhi High Court has declined a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging Navjot Singh Sidhu’s social media posts promoting Ayurveda in relation to his wife’s cancer recovery. The court found no substantial grounds to interfere with Sidhu’s freedom of speech, emphasizing that such expressions are personal opinions and not enforceable medical advice.
Background:
Navjot Singh Sidhu, a former cricketer and politician, had shared posts on social media attributing his wife’s recovery from cancer to Ayurvedic treatments. The PIL contended that such statements could mislead people by promoting alternative medicine as a definitive cure for cancer, potentially endangering public health.
Court’s Rationale:
The High Court observed that Sidhu’s posts were personal accounts and did not violate any legal or ethical standards. It underscored the need to balance public interest with an individual’s right to express personal experiences, noting that the posts were not framed as professional medical advice.
Existing Measures:
Health-related claims, particularly on social media, are subject to scrutiny under consumer protection and advertising laws to prevent misleading information. However, personal anecdotes shared without commercial intent typically do not fall under regulatory purview.
Conclusion:
The court’s decision reaffirms the principle of free expression while cautioning against overregulation of personal opinions. It highlights the importance of public discernment in evaluating health claims and underscores the distinction between personal anecdotes and authoritative medical advice.