A Historic Civil Suit seeking damages and compensation amounting to ₹5 Lakh Crores (approximately $67 billion USD) is filed against Adar Poonawalla, Cyrus Poonawalla, and Serum Institute of India, who are partners of Bill Gates in manufacturing vaccines.
The case is allotted to the Senior Division Judge Smt. S.K. Choudhary and on the request of Plaintiff the court had listed the hearing of suit for granting interim relief had been listed on 04th October 2024.
Member Awaken India Movement (AIM) has filed a record-breaking civil suit seeking damages and compensation amounting to ₹5 lakh crore (approximately $67 billion USD) in the court of Civil judge Senior Division, Thane [Special Civil Suit No. 295 of 2024 between Mr. Yusuf Thanwala Vs. Mr. Adar Poonawala and 37 ors. ]
Internationally renowned epidemiologists and experts such as Dr. Amitav Banerjee and IIT Prof. Bhaskar Raman have been cited as witnesses to counter the false narratives and conspiracy theories propagated by Mr. Adar Poonawalla, Cyrus Poonawalla, and Serum Institute of India and other vaccine mafia.
High-profile figures, including Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi, Jharkhand Chief Minister Hemant Soren, BJP Leader Kirit Somaiya, and MP Akhilesh Yadav, have been named as witnesses to expose the alleged fraudulent practices of Serum Institute of India regarding their Covishield vaccine. The suit accuses the company of selling defective and deadly vaccines, which are to be responsible for numerous deaths, particularly among Indian youth.
In a related matter, Adar Poonawalla and Serum Institute faced a setback in a ₹10,000 crore defamation suit filed by AIM member Prakash Pohre.
On August 2, 2024, the Senior Division Judge of Civil Court had ordered prosecution against Mr. Adar Poonawalla and Serum Institute for playing fraud upon the court by filing false affidavit with suppression of material facts and death causing side effects and ban of Covishield vaccine, which has been banned in several European countries due to side effects of death.
The plaintiff, Yusuf Thanwala, is represented by a team of eminent lawyers, including Adv. Ishwarlal Agrawal** (Chairman of the Supreme Court Lawyers Association), Adv. O. D. Kakde, Adv. Nilesh Ojha (President of Indian Bar Association), Adv. Ghanshyam Upadhyay, Adv. Tanveer Nizam, Adv. Dipali Ojha, Adv. Shailesh Narnawre Adv. Vijay Kurle and Adv. Mariam Nizam among others.
The suit, which has been meticulously drafted by a team of over 50 experts, including senior most Lawyers, former Judges doctors, Epidemiologists, Scientists, Researchers, IIT’ans Human Rights Activists, Sr. Journalists, etc marks a historic legal battle.
33 media houses, including YouTube and Google, have also been named as defendants. The suit seeks a directive that these platforms must publish accurate reports on the side effects and deaths linked to COVID vaccines and refrain from censoring information to protect the interests of vaccine manufacturers.
Key Demands in the Suit:
(a) Permanent Injunction: To restrain Defendants ( Serum Company, Adar and Cyrus Poonawalla) from making or publishing any defamatory statements or content through any medium.
(b) Public Clarification and Apology: Directions to Defendants ( Serum Company, Adar and Cyrus Poonawalla) to issue a public statement across all media platforms clarifying the harmful effects of the Covishield vaccine, retracting false claims about its safety, and apologizing for the misleading promotion.
And recognize that the plaintiff acted in good faith to protect the public from the vaccine’s adverse effects, fulfilling his constitutional duty under Article 51A.
(d) Compensation: Direct Defendants 1 to 5 ( Serum Company, Adar and Cyrus Poonawalla) to pay ₹5 lakh crore (approximately $67 billion USD) as compensation, along with 18% interest per annum from the date of filing.
(e) Directions to Defendant 6 to 38 ( media houses including YouTube) to cease censoring news related to the Covishield vaccine’s death causing and other serious side effects and publish court updates impartially by taking view and scientific research of both sides.
Legal Grounds:
Failure to Respond: The defendants (Serum Company, Adar Cyrus Poonawalla) did not respond to the legal notice dated January 2, 2024, claiming ₹5 Lakh Crore in damages, which raises an inference of bad faith against Serum Company, Adar Cyrus Poonawalla.
Dishonest Suppression of Facts: The Serum Company and Adar Cyrus Poonawalla have deliberately suppressed the very fact that the defamatory allegations made by them in their complaint dated 01.10.2022 against the Plaintiff were rejected and dismissed by the police two times, but they deliberately suppressed those crucial facts and keep on repeating the said false and defamatory allegations against the Plaintiff and Awaken India Movement.
Proof of Damages of 5 Lakh crores claimed by the Plaintiff: As per Supreme Court ruling the plaintiff does not need to prove actual damages and loss of reputation, though he is prepared to present evidence.
This suit is expected to be the first of many, with approximately 1,500 similar cases poised to be filed against Adar and Cyrus Poonawalla, Serum Institute of India and Bill Gates across the country.
The essence of the Plaintiff’s grievance against Defendant Nos. 1 to 5 ( Adar and Cyrus Poonawalla and Serum Institute of India)is summarized in plaint as follows:
154.1. The Plaintiff is a reputable and law-abiding citizen, a Social and Human Rights Activist, and a Life Coach specializing in personality development training.
154.2. The Plaintiff is fulfilling his constitutional duty under Article 51A of the Constitution of India by disseminating information to the public about the risks associated with the various corona vaccines including Covishield vaccine. He seeks to hold Defendant No. 1 Mr. Aadar Poonawalla, Defendant No. 2 Serum Institute of India Pvt. Ltd., Defendant No. 5 Cyrus Poonawalla, and all relevant officials of Serum Institute accountable for their role in jeopardizing public health by concealing the vaccine’s side effects and administering it under false pretenses to generate substantial profit for the Serum Institute and its affiliates.
154.3. The Plaintiff’s work is supported by authentic data, research papers, and scientific information from internationally renowned experts, including Dr. Amitav Banerjee and Dr. Sanjiv Rai of AIIMS Delhi. Additionally, he is drawing attention to specific findings from the Hon’ble Supreme Court and various High Courts in India, including the 72nd Parliamentary Committee report on the alleged connection between the vaccine industry and government officials, and legal advice from eminent advocates such as Sr. Adv. Sh. Prashant Bhushan and Adv. Dipali Ojha of the Indian Bar Association.
154.4. The Plaintiff, along with organizations like AIM, has exposed the fraudulent schemes of Defendant Nos. 1 to 5 in profiting from the sale of harmful vaccines by concealing their serious side effects.
154.5. In April 2021, Defendant Nos. 1 to 5 marketed their vaccines in India under the guise of philanthropy, despite the fact that these vaccines had been banned/suspended in several countries since March 2021. This constitutes clear deception and an attempt to place individuals in danger, as research indicates that the COVID-19 vaccines are significantly more harmful 98 times worse than the corona virus itself.
154.6. The Division Bench of the Hon’ble High Court in Writ Petition No. 5767 of 2022, filed by Sh. Dilip Lunawat, acknowledged the case against Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and issued notices to Defendant No. 2 Serum Institute, Defendant No. 1 Aadar Poonawalla, Mr. Bill Gates, the Union of India, and others. The High Court also provided a copy of the notice (Hamdast) to Sh. Dilip Lunawat.
154.7. Despite being served with the High Court’s notice on October 1, 2022, the respondents, including present Defendant Nos. 1 and 2, have failed to file any response since last 23 months, to the serious allegations of Dr. Snehal Lunawat’s death resulting from the Covishield vaccine, which was administered without disclosing its severe side effects.
154.8. Defendant No. 2 Serum Institute, in their reply via email to Dr. Snehal Lunawat’s family, denied that her death was caused by the side effects of the Covishield vaccine.
154.9. The dishonesty of Defendant Nos. 1 to 5 is evident from the Government of India’s AEFI Committee report, which confirmed that Dr. Snehal Lunawat’s death was due to the Covishield vaccine’s side effects.
154.10. Following the High Court’s order dated August 26, 2022, Sh. Dilip Lunawat proceeded to Pune to serve copies of the Hamdast and writ summons on Defendant Nos. 1 and 2, namely Mr. Aadar Poonawalla and Serum Institute, with the assistance of the Awaken India Movement (AIM) and the Plaintiff, who volunteered for the program held on October 1, 2022, in Pune.
154.11. An advance written notice was provided to the Pune Police at Shivaji Nagar and Hadapsar Police Stations on September 28, 2022. All legal formalities and precautions were observed by the Plaintiff and AIM team to prevent any issues.
154.12. Nevertheless, Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 conspired to defame the Plaintiff and other activists by lodging a police complaint aimed at having them arrested on serious criminal charges. This scheme was intended to protect the Defendants from future litigation and to dissuade others from making complaints against them.
154.13. As part of this conspiracy, Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 filed a complaint with the Hadapsar Police Station on October 1, 2022.
154.14. In the complaint dated October 1, 2022, Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 maliciously accused the Plaintiff and others of organizing an unauthorized and illegal march intended to unlawfully restrain the directors of the Serum Institute and damage their property and reputation. They requested that the police to register an FIR and arrest the Plaintiff and AIM team members on charges including rioting, unlawful assembly, wrongful restraint, criminal trespass, defamation, and criminal intimidation, among others, under sections 143, 147, 149, 341, 425, 426, 441, 447, 499, 500, and 506 of the IPC.
154.15. The Hadapsar Police, aware of the advance notice given by AIM, realized the dishonesty and malafides of Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 and rejected their request and declined to arrest the Plaintiff and AIM team members or register an offense (FIR) under Section 154 of the Cr.P.C.
154.16. Disagreeng with the response by Police Officers at Hadapsar Police Station, the Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 availed the jurisdiction under sec. 154(3) of Cr. P.C. and approached the Commissioner of Police, Pune, on the same day, i.e. October 1, 2022, and submitted a similar defamatory and totally false and bogus complaint by specifically naming the Plaintiff. However, the Commissioner of Police also declined to register an FIR or take action of arrest against the Plaintiff and AIM team members.
154.16(A). The writ summons were served upon Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 through court bailiff, in a lawful and peaceful manner without any criminal offenses such as rioting or a breakdown of law and order as falsely projected by Defendants Nos. 1 to 3.
154.16(A). Despite this, Defendants Nos. 1 to 3 repeatedly used the defamatory complaint before various courts, with distorted pleadings on affidavit, deliberately suppressing the fact that the complaint was rejected by the police and writ summons were served upon Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 through court bailiff, in a lawful and peaceful manner without any criminal offenses such as rioting or a breakdown of law.
154.16(B). The impression/innuendo created by Defendants Nos. 1 to 3 about the Plaintiff is that the Plaintiff and his associates are lawbreakers involved in offenses such as rioting, criminal trespass, and criminal intimidation. It was further implied that the Plaintiff and his associates intended to damage the property of Defendant No. 2 (Serum Institute) and disrupt law and order.
154.16(C). Defendants Nos. 1 to 4 have conspired to continuously and maliciously publish and use the said complaint with a distorted, false, defamatory, and incomplete version everywhere including various Court proceedings.
154.17. The malice and ill will of Defendant nos. 1 to 4 against the Plaintiff and the falsity of the allegations in the October 1, 2022 complaint is ex facie evident from Defamation Suit No. (L) 3253 of 2022 filed by Defendant Nos. 1 to 3, where the Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 were not able to make the Plaintiff as a party, because no evidence was available with them against the Plaintiff to support their claims of criminal offenses including defamation as imputed in their complaint dated 1st October 2022.
The malafides of Defendant nos. 1 to 4 is writ at large as can be seen from the very fact that in the said Suit 2022 filed by Defendant Nos. 1 to 3, they highlighted the defamatory allegations against the Plaintiff, including the complaint dated October 1, 2022, submitted to the Hadapsar Police Station and the Commissioner of Police. But deliberately suppressed the very fact that their complaint was rejected by both the authorities i.e. Hadapsar Police Station and Commissioner of Police Pune. Instead they produced a distorted version in their respective pleadings.
154.19. The actions of Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 in using false complaint against the Plaintiff in a Suit without making him a party to the said Suit, contravenes established legal principles and Supreme Court directions, which stipulate that allegations of malice against individuals who are not parties to a case are inadmissible in court pleadings. [State of Chhattisgarh v. Aman Kumar Singh, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 198 & Bhim Sen Garg v. State, 2006 Cr. L.J. 3643]
154.20. To avoid paying Rs. 10,000 Crores in damages in a defamation suit, Defendant Nos. 1 to 5 used the complaint dated October 1, 2022, to defame the Plaintiff. They specifically named him and included the false complaint in various affidavits filed in Special Civil Suit No. 417 of 2023 before the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) in Nagpur, filed by Sh. Prakash Pohre, a Senior Member of AIM.
The defendant’s conduct has been calculated by him to make a profit for himself by saving the amount of comensation of Rs. 10,000 Crores which may be awarded in defamation suit against him is a ground to exceed the compensation payable to the plaintiff. [Rustom K. Karanjia Vs Krishnaraj 1969 SCC On Line Bom 44]
154.21. This further demonstrates that Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 are defaming the Plaintiff for their own wrongful profit/gain.
154.22. In every pleading, Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 have maliciously used the October 1, 2022 complaint with a distorted version, dishonestly concealing the fact that the complaint was rejected by both the police station and the Commissioner of Police. The following affidavits submitted by Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 illustrate their dishonesty and extent of defamation of the Plaintiff:
(i) Suit No. (L) 33253 of 2022 filed in Bombay High Court on October 18, 2022
(ii) Two written statements dated June 3, 2023, submitted before the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division Nagpur in Special Civil Suit No. 417 of 2023
(iii) Affidavit dated April 29, 2023, submitted in an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC in Nagpur Court in Special Civil Suit No. 417 of 2023
(iv) Written notes of arguments dated April 22, 2024, submitted before Nagpur Court in Special Civil Suit No. 417 of 2023
(v) Affidavit dated August 8, 2024, submitted with Criminal Writ Petition No. 625 of 2024 before the Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court
(vi) Repeatedly during oral arguments before various courts, as reported to the Plaintiff by numerous people and reporters.
154.23. The Plaintiff and AIM members issued legal notices to Defendant Nos. 1 to 3, demanding an apology, cessation of the false allegations in the October 1, 2022 complaint, and payment of damages. The Plaintiff’s email was sent on January 1, 2023.
In a legal notice dated January 2, 2023, issued by Adv. Snehal Surve on behalf of Sh. Prakash Pohre, Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 were asked to pay damages of Rs. 10,000 Crores and warned to preserve property and shares worth Rs. 5 Lakh Crores, representing the approximate amount of claims from various citizens and AIM team members.
154.24 The above said legal notice was neither disputed nor responded to by Defendant Nos. 1 to 3, demonstrating their malicious, dishonest, and bad faith actions. Due to non-reply of notice by the defendants now according to the ruling in D.C. Peter vs. Mohan (2020 SCC Online Kar 5405), the Defendant Nos. 1 to 5 are now barred from claiming good faith or inadvertent mistake as a defense. Any defense from Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 will be considered an afterthought. [Yogendra Bhagatram Sachdev v. State of Maharashtra, 2003 SCC OnLine Bom 1121; Ved Parkash Kharbanda v. Vimal Bindal, 2013 SCC OnLine Del 994]
154.25 Defendant Nos. 1 to 3’s failure to apologize, despite the rejection of their complaint dated October 1, 2022, and despite receipt of legal notice their continued use of the complaint with distorted details, constitutes aggravated defamation. This persistent misuse adds to the harm already inflicted on the Plaintiff’s reputation. It added salt to injury. Consequently, Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 are liable for substantial exemplary and punitive damages. [Hindustan Unilever Ltd. v. Reckitt Benckiser India Ltd., 2014 SCC OnLine Del 490; John v. MGN, (1996) ALL ER 35 (CA); Cassell v. Broome, (1972) ALL MR 801]
154.26 The false and defamatory allegations made by Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 against Plaintiff involve serious criminal offenses such as rioting and accusations of circulating false information and further showing immediate need for arresting the Plaintiff. These allegations are highly defamatory and fall into the category of ‘defamatory per se’. The Plaintiff does not need to prove actual loss of reputation, as malice is presumed by law. [Sopullo Datta Naik Dessai v. Yeshwant Govind Dessai, 2009 SCC OnLine Bom 1400; Sadasiba Panda v. Bansidhar Sahu, AIR 1962 Ori 115; John Thomas v. K. Jagadeesan (Dr), (2001) 6 SCC 30; Harish Kumar Garg v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 SCC OnLine Bom 2968;M.S. Ahluwalia v. Tehelka.Com, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 4275; Rohini Singh v. State of Gujarat, 2019 SCC OnLine SC 2378; Narottamdas L. Shah v. Patel Maganbhai Revabhai, 1984 SCC OnLine Guj 100.]
154.27 Reputation is invaluable and its loss is considered worse than death. It cannot be fully restored by any amount of compensation or damages. Reputation is seen as a precious asset and an integral part of personal security, protected under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
The reputation of every man is priceless. The person is half dead if his reputation is lost. It is held to be worst than the death. The reputation once lost or harmed cannot be regained by any amount of wealth or even damages paid by the Defendant. It cannot be regained even if billions are granted in repartation.
The compensation may be helpful only for partly covering the total loss of reputation.
The reputation is perceived an honour rather than popularity. It is not only the sail of life, but also the purest treasure and the most precious perfume of life. It is revenue generator for the present as well as for posterity.
Good reputation is element of personal security and is protected by Constitution equally with the right to the enjoyment of life, liberty and the property and held to be a necessary element in regard to life of a citizen under Article 21 of the Constitution of India
[M.S. Ahluwalia v. Tehelka.Com, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 4275; Hindustan Unilever Ltd. v. Reckitt Benckiser India Ltd., 2014 SCC OnLine Del 490; Om Prakash Shyamdasani v. State of U.P., 2016 SCC OnLine All 1737; Umesh Kumar v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2013) 10 SCC 591; K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1; S. Mariaselvi v. A.S. Mani, 2024 SCC OnLine Mad 1375; Kiran Bedi v. Committee of Inquiry, (1989) 1 SCC 494]154.28 The defamation is further aggravated by the fact that Defendant Nos. 1 to 3’s version has been widely published across print, electronic, and social media, while the Plaintiff’s version has not been covered by major media outlets like ‘The Times of India’, ‘Economic Times’, and ‘Live Law’.
154.29 Defendant No. 5, Shri Cyrus Poonawalla, Chairman and MD of Defendant No. 2 (Serum Institute of India Pvt. Ltd.), is also liable. His failure to prevent Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 from filing the false and defamatory complaint complaint and subsequent affidavits with distorted versions of gross defamation, makes him equally responsible. Under Section 10 of the Evidence Act, a person is accountable for both actions and omissions. [Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. Union of India, 1991 SCC OnLine Bom 496; Raman Lal v. State, 2001 Cri. L.J. 800; Pratapbhai Hamirbhai Solanki v. State of Gujarat, (2013) 1 SCC 613; CBI v. Bhupendra Champaklal Dalal, 2019 SCC OnLine Bom 140]
154.30 The publication of one-sided and distorted news by Defendant Nos. 1 to 5 further evidences their malicious intent. This conduct misleads the public, creates confusion among witnesses, public and prospective litigants and interferes with the administration of justice. [Nilesh Navlakha v. Union of India, 2021 SCC OnLine Bom 56; High Court of Meghalaya v. Patricia Mukhim, 2019 SCC OnLine Megh 41; G. Square Realtors (P) Ltd. v. Shankar, 2022 SCC OnLine Mad 8315]
154.31 The law is well established that filing petitions, suits, affidavits, or any pleadings in court constitutes publication, and defamation actions are maintainable for false and defamatory allegations in these documents. [Prabhakaran v. Gangadharan, 2006 SCC OnLine Ker 302; Joy Anto v. C.R. Jaison, MANU/KE/0632/2021; M.N. Damani v. S.K. Sinha, (2001) 5 SCC 156; Rosario Colaco v. Amelia Mariquinha Zuzarte, 2009 SCC OnLine Bom 110; Sopullo Datta Naik Dessai v. Yeshwant Govind Dessai, 2009 SCC OnLine Bom 1400; Trichinopoly Ramaswami Ardhanani v. Kripa Shankar Bhargava, 1990 SCC OnLine MP 10; Sushma Rani v. H.N. Nagaraja Rao, 2020 SCC OnLine Kar 1913; Sanjay Mishra v. Govt. (NCT of Delhi), 2012 SCC OnLine Del 1779]
154.32. When the police refuse to register an FIR for a false, frivolous, and defamatory complaint, the defendants cannot claim any privilege or protection from defamation action. They should be tried for defamation and are required to pay damages to the Plaintiff. [Prafulla Hedge v. Vineeta Vaze, 2014 SCC OnLine Bom 245; Surinder Kumar v. Raj Mal Saini, 2016 SCC OnLine P&H 10517; Ram Jethmalani v. Subramaniam Swamy, 2006 SCC OnLine Del 14; Sopullo Datta Naik Dessai v. Yeshwant Govind Dessai, 2009 SCC OnLine Bom 1400; M.A. Rumugam v. Kittu, (2009) 1 SCC 101; Chaman Lal v. State of Punjab, (1970) 1 SCC 590]
Source: Rashidkhanpathan, Serum institute-Image-Facebook
Also Read: