The Delhi High Court on Wednesday declined to entertain a plea challenging Congress leader Navjot Singh Sidhu’s statements regarding alternative remedies that allegedly helped his wife in her fight against stage 4 cancer.
The court emphasized that Sidhu was simply expressing his opinion, and the petitioner was free to disagree and respond.
A Bench consisting of Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela stated, “He is just voicing his opinion. If you disagree with him, counter his claims with your own speech—don’t attempt to curtail his free speech by threatening legal action or contempt.” The bench stressed that freedom of speech remains intact in India and encouraged the petitioner to challenge Sidhu’s statements publicly, not through legal proceedings.
The judges further remarked, “You cannot curtail free speech. If you don’t agree with someone, don’t listen to them. If you believe certain books are harmful, don’t read them. Free speech cannot be suppressed through the courts by invoking contempt.” The court made it clear that it could not intervene in such matters, and the petitioner eventually chose to withdraw the plea.
The case stemmed from comments Sidhu made during a November 21 press conference in Amritsar, where he claimed that his wife, Navjot Kaur Sidhu, had been declared cancer-free, crediting her recovery to dietary and lifestyle changes. He listed various foods such as lemon water, raw turmeric, and neem leaves as part of the diet he said helped her overcome cancer.
After medical professionals questioned his statements, Sidhu clarified on November 25 that the diet plan was part of a broader treatment strategy and should be seen as complementary rather than a standalone cure. He explained that the changes were made in consultation with doctors.
The petitioner, however, contested Sidhu’s claims, particularly the suggestion that a combination of herbs like tulsi and ashwagandha could completely cure stage 4 cancer. The petitioner argued that Sidhu’s influence, given his celebrity status, made his statements potentially harmful, as they were being widely circulated on social media and news platforms.
The court, however, disagreed, stating that if Sidhu’s wife, who is a doctor herself, felt better following the diet, it was a personal choice. Justice Gedela also quipped that if the petitioner was truly concerned about public health, they should file a petition against the production of cigarettes and alcohol, which have well-documented health risks.
The controversy gained further attention when Dr. C.S. Pramesh, director of Tata Memorial Hospital, criticized Sidhu’s claims, asserting that the real treatment for cancer was surgery and chemotherapy, not unscientific remedies like turmeric or neem. Dr. Pramesh took to social media to advise the public not to be misled by Sidhu’s unverified statements.
