SC stays proceedings on fresh complaints against Ramdev
Supreme Court today stayed fresh criminal proceedings initiated recently in different parts of country against Yoga guru Ramdev, for his alleged controversial “honeymoon” remarks targeting Rahul Gandhi over visiting homes of Dalits.
“Our earlier interim order (of May 9 last year) shall continue in other matters also,” a bench comprising Chief Justice H L Dattu and Justice A K Sikri said.
During the hearing, lawyer Keshav Mohan, appearing for Ramdev, said it has come to light that around eleven more complaints have been filed in different parts of the country.
The bench then said that its earlier order, staying criminal proceedings in some cases, would apply to other transfer petitions filed by him.
Ramdev is seeking directions restraining any coercive action against him and for clubbing all FIRs lodged in different parts of the country for his controversial “honeymoon” remark.
Earlier, the court had asked Ramdev to file separate pleas to seek clubbing and transfer of criminal complaints at a particular place in the country.
It had also said that the Yoga guru cannot be tried at different places in the country for one alleged controversial remark.
“If he (Ramdev) is wrong then he should be punished but, simultaneously, he cannot not be prosecuted at 20 different places,” the bench had said.
The court, had on May 9 last year, stayed all proceedings against Ramdev in different parts of the country for his alleged controversial remarks.
It had issued notices to the police in all states which have registered cases against Ramdev.
The plea had said that complaints and FIRs arising out of Ramdev’s alleged comments of April 25 last year at press conference be clubbed and dealt in Lucknow or any place of the choice of the apex court.
Ramdev had also sought that the courts and police should be restrained from taking any coercive action against him in pursuance of the FIRs lodged against him.
The first FIR was lodged against Ramdev at Mahanagar police station in Lucknow under section of 171(g) (false statement in connection with an election) of the IPC for his remarks against the Congress Vice President.
His comments had sparked outrage with several parties and organisations terming them as “anti-Dalit”.