Skip to main content

Supreme Court dismisses plea seeking use of red ant chutney for preventing Covid-19 infection

Supreme Court dismisses plea seeking use of red ant chutney for preventing Covid-19 infection

By - Nivedita Tiwari*

The Petitioner Nayadhar Padhilal, had filed a writ petition before the High Court of Orissa. He is an engineer by profession and belongs to the Bathudi Tribal Adivasi community. He contended that Kaai (Kutuki) Chutney (paste) which is prepared by using red ants, mixed with green chilly is a potent medicine that can boost the immunity system and it can prevent the infection of COVID-19.  

When his representations to the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) and the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) were not considered, the petitioner filed a writ petition, which was disposed of by the order of the Orissa High Court with a direction to CSIR, and ICMR to decide on his representation.

Also Read - Economic criterion cannot be the sole criterion for identifying creamy layer: Supreme Court quashes Haryana Govt. notification

The Ministry of Ayush, Government of India as well as the CSIR had taken consideration of the same. The CSIR stated that it does not have the required expertise in the domain of entomophagy and therefore would not be able to pursue any action on the matter.

The Central Council of Research in Ayurvedic Sciences noted that it could not find any reference from the classical books of Ayurveda mentioned in the First schedule of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 on the internal use of red ant chutney so as to validate it as an Ayurveda medicine and hence the use of red ant chutney or the soup for treating COVID-19 patients is out of the purview of the Ayurveda drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and Rules, 1945.  

Also Read - Counsel's failure to argue written submissions is not a ground of review: Bombay High Court

The Petitioner insisted that both the Ministry of Ayush as well as CSIR ought to have referred the matter to some other body of experts. The Court rejected the plea and stated that the matter is best left for the decision by specialised bodies like CSIR and Central Council of Research in Ayurvedic Sciences, as they have several experts.

The petitioner approached the Supreme Court and the bench headed by Justice D.Y. Chandrachud stated that the entire country cannot be asked to use chutney as a cure for COVID-19. The Petitioner can use it, but as a Constitutional Court, it cannot ask people to start consuming red ant chutney for treatment of COVID-19. There is no scientific evidence to prove that it is beneficial to protect people against the pandemic.  

Also Read - Admissions conducted through private counselling are per se illegal: Supreme Court dismisses plea of students admitted through private counselling

The counsel for the petitioner, Advocate Anirudha Sanganeria argued that the Ministry of Ayush and CSIR have refused to entertain his client’s request without referring the matter to the experts who could examine the claim by using scientific methods. 

The bench rejected this submission and stated that their claims were already considered by the Ministry of Ayush and CSIR. The Court even advised the petitioner to get vaccinated and to not rely totally on red ant chutney.

CLICK HERE TO READ ORDER.

*Nivedita Tiwari is a 3rd year student pursuing B.A.LL.B. from SRM University, Delhi-NCR, Sonepat.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Patna High Court Declares Bihar’s Reservation Amendments Ultra Vires

  In a landmark decision, the Patna High Court has invalidated the Bihar government's legislative attempt to increase reservations for backward classes. The court's ruling focused on procedural flaws and the absence of a robust empirical basis for the hike, sparking a debate on judicial intervention in affirmative action policies. Background and Rationale Behind Setting Aside Bihar Reservation Increase Law The Bihar government had proposed an increase in reservations to address socio-economic disparities faced by backward classes. However, the court found that the state failed to follow due process, which includes conducting a thorough empirical study to justify the policy change. This procedural oversight led to the court's decision to strike down the increase. The High Court emphasized the necessity of a data-driven approach for policy changes related to reservations. The ruling underscored that without solid empirical evidence, such policies could not be justified within...
Post a Comment
Read more

Pune Porsche Crash: Father of Minor Granted Bail

Image Credit: tv9marathi A Pune court has granted bail to the minor’s father, Vishal Agarwal, who faced charges under the Juvenile Justice Act for neglect and endangering the child by allowing him to drive without a license and consume alcohol. Additionally, bar owners and managers were arrested for serving alcohol to minors. The father, already in custody for other related charges, was implicated in the alleged manipulation of his son’s blood samples and in a separate case of kidnapping his driver. Advocate Prashant Patil argued that Vishal Agarwal's arrest was unlawful, contending that the charges were non-cognizable offenses and required a notice under the Criminal Procedure Code. Mr. Patil also highlighted contradictions in police reports, where the minor was listed as the accused in one FIR and as a victim in another.  Also Read:  Delhi High Court Stays Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal's Bail in Excise Policy Case Earlier Proceedings in the Pune Porsche Crash Inc...
Post a Comment
Read more

Counsel's failure to argue written submissions is not a ground of review: Bombay High Court

By - Sameeksha Negi* The Bombay High Court has observed that “If Counsel has not urged a point, the fact that there were written submissions is immaterial if those written submissions were never in fact argued.” The Bench also added that “Counsel’s failure to argue written submissions is not a ground of review or, I dare say, even appeal. It is no ground to assail any order of any judge of any court.”   The bench was hearing a review petition filed for seeking reinstatement of original arbitration petition on grounds some of which were never argued and others never pleaded and the said petition was filed after the original arbitration petition was fully argued, and then decided by pronouncement in open court. Also Read - The Pension Scheme for freedom fighters cannot be construed in a manner that the requirements prescribed are rendered a dead letter: Bombay HC According to Justice GS Patel allowing parties to take grounds in review pleas or in appeals that were not argued initi...
Post a Comment
Read more