‘Still have freedom of speech’: HC says no to plea against wife’s cancer cure claim of Navjot Sidhu

Observing there still was freedom of speech in the country, the Delhi High Court on Wednesday refused to entertain a plea against Congress leader Navjot Singh Sidhu’s claims that certain remedies helped his wife in her battle against stage 4 cancer.

A bench of Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela said the former cricketer had only voiced his opinion and the petitioner was also free to counter the claims.

“He is just voicing his opinion. Counter his claims by holding a press conference. Counter free speech by free speech and not by curtailing his free speech under the fear of legal action or contempt. We still have freedom of speech in this country,” the bench said.

The bench went on to underline, “You can’t say freedom of speech be curtailed. You counter his claim. This is not our domain. If you don’t agree with this gentleman’s views, don’t listen to him. There are a lot of books which you may feel are bad, don’t read them. Who is asking you to read them? Free speech is not meant to be curtailed by bringing them to court and putting them under the fear of contempt withdrawn.” As the court made it clear that a writ petition couldn’t be entertained, the petitioner sought to withdraw it.

“We can’t entertain a writ petition on this. Thousands of people claim they have a cure for something but that does not mean you will seek action against them.” At a press conference in Amritsar on November 21, Sidhu stated that his wife Navjot Kaur Sidhu had been declared cancer-free, emphasising the role of dietary and lifestyle changes in her recovery.

He then said his wife’s diet included things like lemon water, raw turmeric, apple cider vinegar, neem leaves, basil, pumpkin, pomegranate, amla, beetroot and walnuts which made her healthy.

After oncologists questioned his claim that a strict diet helped his wife defeat stage 4 cancer, Sidhu clarified on November 25 that the diet plan was implemented in consultation with doctors and should be considered “facilitation in the treatment”.

During the hearing, the petitioner said he was against Sidhu’s claim on 100 per cent cure of cancer questioning if tulsi and ashwagandha fully could defeat stage 4 cancer.

Sidhu’s video circulated on various social media platforms and news channels, and as a celebrity he had influence over many, it was claimed.

The petitioner therefore urged the court to restrain circulation of the videos saying misinformation was being peddled.

The court, however, said if Sidhu’s wife, who was a doctor herself, felt better by following a particular diet, it was good.

Justice Gedela remarked if the petitioner was really concerned about public interest, he should go and file a petition against the manufacture of cigarettes and alcohol.

On November 23, Dr C S Pramesh, director of Tata Memorial Hospital, which specialises in cancer treatment, posted a video of Sidhu’s press conference on X and said, “Parts of the video imply that starving cancer by avoiding dairy products and sugar, and consuming haldi (turmeric) and neem, helped cure her ‘incurable’ cancer”.

He added, “Please don’t believe or be fooled by these statements, regardless of who they come from. These are unscientific and baseless recommendations. It was surgery and chemotherapy, which are evidence-based treatments, that made her cancer-free, not haldi, neem, or other such remedies”.