A Legal Twist in the Ramdev Case: Only One FIR Still Standing
In an unexpected turn, the Supreme Court on Monday permitted Patanjali Ayurved founder Baba Ramdev to withdraw his petition that had sought to merge all FIRs lodged against him across states. These cases were linked to his controversial comments about 'allopathic' medicine during the Covid-19 pandemic—a subject that continues to stir debate even today.
The matter came before a bench comprising Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma. As proceedings began, Ramdev’s legal counsel informed the Court that authorities in Chhattisgarh had already filed a closure report, which was still awaiting a final decision. However, the current status of the FIR lodged in Bihar remained unclear.
After considering the submissions, Justice Sundresh made it clear that the bench was not inclined to intervene further. “We are not inclined to interfere. We will close it,” he remarked. Following this observation, Ramdev’s counsel opted to withdraw the petition, which the Court accepted.
Interestingly, this is not the first time the issue came up before the apex court. On September 9, 2025, the Court had been informed that the FIR in Chhattisgarh was effectively closed. Yet, at that time, the bench noted that one case—the Bihar FIR—was still active, making the plea for clubbing the cases redundant.
Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave, representing Ramdev, had earlier raised a key concern: whether the closure report in Chhattisgarh could be reopened if someone filed a protest petition. He also stressed that the real status of the Bihar FIR should be verified before the petition was dismissed. However, even now, the Bihar case remains an unresolved mystery, leaving some observers wondering whether fresh developments might emerge later.
At the heart of the controversy lies a video where Baba Ramdev criticized modern medical (allopathic) treatment for Covid-19—remarks that sparked nationwide outrage and triggered multiple FIRs in different states. Seeking relief, Ramdev had asked the Supreme Court to either dismiss or consolidate these cases and protect him from any coercive actions.
Case Details:
- Case Number: Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 265 of 2021
- Case Title: Swami Ram Dev v. Union of India & Others
But here’s where it gets intriguing... Does this withdrawal mark the quiet end of the controversy, or is it merely a pause before another legal chapter unfolds? And more importantly, should public figures be held legally accountable for criticizing medical systems—or is that a matter of free speech in a democracy?
What do you think? Share your thoughts—should the courts treat such remarks as criminally offensive, or as protected personal opinions that deserve open debate?
