[COVID-19] Calcutta High Court Criticizes Detention of Doctor who Posted about Lack of Protective Gear for Doctors, Cites Article 19 of the Constitution and Orders Release

Must Read

Bombay High Court Allows Petition Seeking Lawyers and Legal Clerks To Travel in Local Trains

The present hearing arose out of a batch of Public Interest Litigations that was filed in the Bombay High...

Provisions for Retirement of Teachers Must Be Read With the Larger Interest of Students in Mind: Supreme Court

Supreme Court in Navin Chandra Dhoundiyal v State of Uttarakhand reinstated the appellants to their position as Professor on...

Parties Cannot Deny Specific Performance Merely Due To Delay: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, in Ferrodous Estate v P Gopirathnam, revisited the law on the specific performance of a contract....

Chandigarh Housing Board Is Bound To Implement the Chandigarh Administration’s Policy Decision: Punjab & Haryana High Court

On 15th October 2020, Justices Jaswant Singh and Sant Parkash heard the case of Bhartendu Sood vs Chandigarh Housing Board...

Bombay High Court Refuses Interim Relief to Doctors Alleging Arbitrary Placement at Government Hospitals for One-Year Mandatory Public Service

The Bombay High Court was hearing a plea against the arbitrary placement of doctors for a mandatory period of...

Uttarakhand High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Seeking Relief for the Cancellation of Selection Process

On 13th October 2020, a Single Judge Bench of Hon'ble Justice Lok Pal Singh, heard the case of Ashish...

Follow us

On 1st April 2020, the Writ Petition was filed relating to the detention of a Doctor which was heard by the Hon’ble Justice I. P. Mukerji under the express undertaking of the petitioner to comply with all formalities concerning the application when the Court resumes normalcy.

Mr Lokenath Chatterjee, the learned advocate of the writ petitioner, i.e. Dr Indranil Khan insisted the matter to be brought urgently before the Court. Therefore, the writ petition was taken up as an unlisted motion with the presence of an officer of the Respondents. The petitioner is a private medical practitioner who has specialized in oncology.

The Charges of Causing Disharmony

The writ petitioner was charged with “causing disharmony and feeling of hatred which disturb public tranquillity” and booked under Section 153A of the IPC. The charges concern the writ petitioner making several Facebook Posts regarding the allegedly “deficient protective gear supplied by the government to its doctors” treating patients affected with COVID-19 virus.

The Charges of Harassment

The learned counsel on behalf of the writ petitioner alleges that Dr Khan was harassed by the police in connection with FIR No. 154 dated 29th March 2020 registered with the Mahesthala Police Station. The writ petitioner was called by the police and interrogated on 29th March for a long duration of time. His mobile phone and SIM card were allegedly seized during such interrogation.

Court’s Response to the Detention of Doctor

The Court stated that it has seen the above-mentioned Facebook Posts as well as a reply made by the Department of Health and Family Welfare thanking Dr Khan for highlighting the matter.

The Court also reiterated that

“Freedom of Speech and Expression which is granted under Article 19 of the Constitution of India has to be scrupulously upheld by the State. If an expression of opinion brings the government into disrepute, it cannot defend this allegation by intimidation of the person expressing the opinion by subjecting him to prolonged interrogation.”

In the perusal of the case, the Court points out that there is no evidence of misuse of any freedom by trying to circulate the alleged “facts maliciously with a view to causing damage to another person or to the public at large or the nation.” The case does not show the petitioner spreading unnecessary panic and fear among the public.

Thus, the Court directed the Officer-in-Charge of the Maheshtala Police Station to immediately return the mobile phone and the SIM Card of the petitioner. Also, there will be no further interrogation by the police without leave from a proper court.

Additionally, the Court restrained the petitioner from making any new posts on Facebook on the above-mentioned issue. The case was heard via video conferencing as per the guidelines of the Nationwide Lockdown.

Calcutta High Court, Advocate Cursed Judge With Coronavirus, andaman and nicobar islands, Calcutta HC issued New Instructions amid Coronavirus Lockdown, Detention of DoctorContext

Amidst the Nation facing a pandemic crisis due to the spread of COVID-19 virus, the doctors and other medical professionals are working on the frontlines to mitigate the crisis. Lack of sufficient Personal Protective Equipment for doctors has become an issue worldwide. There have been reports of the centre exporting PPE despite World Health Organization’s guidelines dated 27th February which directed countries to stockpile on protective gear.

Even the doctors at AIIMS had issued a complaint on 24th March 2020 regarding the dearth of masks and gloves. In such a scenario, harassing and interrogating a medical professional for no given reason has been condemned by medical professionals all over the country. The public is depending on them to provide relevant information that could help the State to make accurate policy decisions.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgements from the court. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe for our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Bombay High Court Allows Petition Seeking Lawyers and Legal Clerks To Travel in Local Trains

The present hearing arose out of a batch of Public Interest Litigations that was filed in the Bombay High Court to permit the members...

Provisions for Retirement of Teachers Must Be Read With the Larger Interest of Students in Mind: Supreme Court

Supreme Court in Navin Chandra Dhoundiyal v State of Uttarakhand reinstated the appellants to their position as Professor on basis of re-employment till the...

Parties Cannot Deny Specific Performance Merely Due To Delay: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, in Ferrodous Estate v P Gopirathnam, revisited the law on the specific performance of a contract. It reiterated that mere delay...

Chandigarh Housing Board Is Bound To Implement the Chandigarh Administration’s Policy Decision: Punjab & Haryana High Court

On 15th October 2020, Justices Jaswant Singh and Sant Parkash heard the case of Bhartendu Sood vs Chandigarh Housing Board & Anr., via video-conferencing. Deeming the...

Bombay High Court Refuses Interim Relief to Doctors Alleging Arbitrary Placement at Government Hospitals for One-Year Mandatory Public Service

The Bombay High Court was hearing a plea against the arbitrary placement of doctors for a mandatory period of one year. The petitioners prayed...

Uttarakhand High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Seeking Relief for the Cancellation of Selection Process

On 13th October 2020, a Single Judge Bench of Hon'ble Justice Lok Pal Singh, heard the case of Ashish Bisht & Anr. v. State...

Madras High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Against National Stock Exchange For Lack Of Merit

In the case of A. Kumar v. Financial Intelligence Unit & Ors., A. Kumar filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution...

The Federal Appeals Court Holds Trump’s Diversion of Military Funds To Build the Wall To Be Unlawful

The Federal Appeals Court held that US President Donald Trump’s diversion of military funds to build the wall is unlawful. A grey area in the...

Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal Filed Challenging the Judgment of Madras High Court in Ganesan v. State Represented by Its Inspector of Police

An appeal was filed before the Supreme court, challenging the judgment & order of Madras High Court. The Supreme Court upheld the HC judgment...

Bombay High Court Refuses Interim Relief to Doctors Alleging Arbitrary Placement at Government Hospitals for One-Year Mandatory Public Service

The Bombay High Court was hearing a plea against the arbitrary placement of doctors for a mandatory period of one year. The petitioners prayed...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -