Previous 1 / 3 Next

Dr. Indranil Khan vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 1 April, 2020 Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Dr. Indranil Khan vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 1 April, 2020 1 01.04.2020 (Unlisted) [via video conference] (S. Banerjee) W.P. 5326(W) of 2020 Dr. Indranil Khan Versus State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Lokenath Chatterjee, Mr. Indrajeet Dasgupta, ... learned advocates for the petitioner Mr. Abhijit Paul, (representative of DG's office and ASI of West Bengal Police) ...For the State. This application is entertained on the express undertaking of the petitioner to comply with all formalities regarding filing including stamping and punching of the petition immediately upon resumption of normal court business. Considering the urgency shown by Mr. Chatterjee, learned advocate, this writ petition is taken up as an unlisted motion, in the presence of an officer of the respondents. The petitioner is a medical practitioner specialised in oncology . He enjoys private practice. Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/66155201/ 1

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Khan v. State of West Bengal

Case Law

Country

India

Country Location

Latitude: 23.078537445745496

Longitude: 78.60363571015989

Country Location (linked Case Law): India

Decision Date: 1 de abr. de 2020

Case Status: Closed

Case Outcome (Procedural)

Motion Granted

Case Outcome (Disposition)

Administrative Measures/Administrative Sanctions to Protect FoE
Injunction or Order Granted

Keywords

Public Order
Social Media

Judicial Body: First Instance Court

Court Name: Calcutta High Court

Case Number: WP 5326(W)/2020

Case Summary: The Calcutta High Court ordered the police to return the petitioner's mobile phone and SIM card which they had seized while interrogating him over several social media posts he had allegedly made about the lack of personal protective equipment (PPEs) supplied by the Government to doctors in public hospitals treating COVID-19 infected patients. The police had registered a complaint against the petitioner for allegedly inciting enmity between persons and disturbing public harmony contrary to Section 153A of the Penal Code. The Court held that prima-facie, the ingredients of Section 153A were not made out and further directed the police not to interrogate the petitioner again without the permission of a competent court. It observed that as per the protection of freedom of expression granted by Article 19 of the Constitution, the Government cannot intimidate a person by subjecting him to lengthy police interrogations or seizures merely because that person expressed an opinion that brought disrepute to the Government. Columbia Global Freedom of Expression notes that some of the information contained in this report was derived from secondary sources.

Collection

Columbia

Primary Documents

khan.PDF
English
Download View

CYRILLA: Global Digital Rights Law

Select target paragraph3

Khan v. State of West Bengal

Primary Documents

Notifications