Tag: Kafeel Khan

UP Police Files FIR Against Dr Kafeel Khan for ‘Instigating Minority Community’ With His 2021 Memoir

Khan said the charges against him in the FIR, based on an alleged conversation between some unknown persons about him and his book, was absurd.

New Delhi: A criminal case was lodged in Uttar Pradesh against Doctor Kafeel Khan on the charges of allegedly publicising his book on the 2017 Gorakhpur oxygen tragedy especially among Muslims with the intent of tarnishing the image of the Adityanath government and instigating the minority community for communal riots in the state.

Khan – who has faced a relentless witch-hunt by the state government since 2017 for highlighting the discrepancies in the Baba Raghav Das Hospital in Gorakhpur — appeared bemused by the FIR lodged on December 1, 2023, as the memoir written by him was published in 2021. He linked it to the presumed depiction of his own experience of August 2017 in the recent blockbuster movie Jawan starring Shah Rukh Khan. Many fans, and Khan himself, believe that a part of the film where a doctor (played by actor Sanya Malhotra) who was falsely blamed for the death of several children at a hospital, was loosely based on the Gorakhpur paediatrician’s life.

“This FIR seems to be an impact of the appreciative letter I wrote to Shah Rukh Khan after the release of the movie, which was a big hit,” Khan, who has relocated to a city in south India to escape state harassment in his native UP, told The Wire.

Khan’s book, The Gorakhpur Hospital Tragedy: A Doctor’s Memoir of a Deadly Medical Crisis, is described as his first-hand chronicle of the events of the fateful night in August 2017, when several infants died in the BRD Hospital in Adityanath’s political turf allegedly due to lack of oxygen supply. It also documents the persecution he faced at the hands of the state in an attempt to allegedly scapegoat him to divert attention from administrative negligence.

The FIR against him and four-five unidentified others was lodged in the Krishna Nagar police station in Lucknow on the complaint of a local resident Manish Shukla, who trades in flex painting. He told The Wire that he was a social activist and claimed that he had no affiliation to any political party, even though the description in his police complaint was heavily tilted in favour of shielding the image of the state government.

In his police complaint, Shukla starts by describing how he overheard four-five unidentified persons in a market-place discussing bringing down the government and rioting. The men, of whom he has not provided any markers, talk about Khan’s book and of him “secretly” distributing it in the state and collecting funds from his community, mentioned as ‘apne log’ (Muslims), for a “secret plot”. Though he does not explicitly mention Muslims, the import of the references are clear as Khan is a Muslim.

Shukla claimed that the men were discussing that Khan was trying to reach out to as many people of his community with the book before the 2024 Lok Sabha election and was “secretly meeting” people to publicise the book. “Under any cost, a pro-Hindu government should not come to power at the Centre, and the Yogi government should also be uprooted, even if it requires inciting riots,” Shukla said, quoting the alleged conversation of the mystery co-accused.

Describing his reaction to the alleged conversation, Shukla said he felt “Dr. Kafeel’s people can spread hate among the public at a large scale and disturb peace; they could also incite riots or even be terrorists.”

Shukla said he did not confront the men and decided to call his friends first. But when he, along with his friends, confronted the co-accused, they escaped in the dark, dropping a copy of the book written by Khan. “We did not run after them fearing that they might be carrying bombs,” Shukla said in the FIR.

In his complaint, Shukla said the book falsely held the Adityanath government responsible for the Gorakhpur oxygen tragedy. The book was written to “enrage” a “specific community”, to spread riots and “class hatred”, and depicts an “imaginary plight” of UP’s health system, leading to fear among the people, he said.

Shukla also claimed that Khan penned the book based on “unverified material and forged documents” to garner sympathy over the criminal cases he faces over the Gorakhpur incident as well as for protesting against the CAA-NRC.

The FIR charges Khan and others under a dozen penal clauses, including Aections 153A (promoting enmity between different groups), 295A (deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings), 465 (forgery), 298 (uttering words with deliberate intent to wound religious feelings) and 504 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace) of the Indian Penal Code. The FIR also invokes Sections 3 and 12 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867.

Khan said the charges against him in the FIR, based on the conversation of some unknown persons about him and his book, was absurd. “Bewakoofi ki baatein hai (This is stupid),” he said. “Everyone and anyone can buy and read my book. The kids who died in the Gorakhpur hospital were not from one community. They were all from poor families.”

Khan also found absurd the fact that though his book, which is today available in six languages (English, Urdu, Hindi, Malayalam, Tamil and Marathi), was released in 2021, the police complaint against it was filed now. “The government has not banned the book,” said Khan when asked to react to the various allegations levelled in the FIR over the motive of the memoir.

He feels the FIR could be motivated by the publicity he garnered following the success of the movie Jawan. In October, in a public letter to Shah Rukh Khan, the doctor said the movie’s “poignant portrayal of the tragic Gorakhpur Encephalitis incident has left an indelible mark on my heart”.

Khan wrote: “As someone who has had a personal connection with the incident and its aftermath, I was profoundly moved by your decision to bring this story to the screen. While I understand that ‘Jawan’ is a work of fiction, the parallels it draws to the Gorakhpur tragedy serve as a powerful reminder of the systemic failures, apathy, and, most importantly, the innocent lives lost. It underscores the urgent need for accountability within our healthcare system.”

Khan also refers to the manner in which the character played by Sanya Malhotra encapsulates his own experience but also distinguishes between the attainment of justice on reel and in his real life.

“It was heartening to witness the real culprit of ‘The Gorakhpur Hospital Tragedy’ got caught , though sadly in real life the real culprits are roaming free , me still struggling to get my job back , and those 63 parents who lost their little ones still waiting for justice,” he wrote.

After being terminated from his services over the events following the Gorakhpur tragedy as a government doctor in BRD hospital in November 2021, Khan is still fighting a legal battle in the Allahabad high court to get his job restored. He was initially hailed as a hero by a section of media and civil society for trying to save the lives of many infants through his own resources during the oxygen shortage incident but was booked and arrested by the government for attempting to commit culpable homicide and other charges. In April 2018, while granting bail to him after he spent seven months in jail, the Allahabad high court said there was no “no material on record, which may establish medical negligence against” him individually in connection with the death of infants in the Gorakhpur hospital in August, 2017.

In 2019, an internal inquiry absolved Khan of the major charges against him in the 2017 BRD hospital oxygen tragedy, but the government later said that he had not been given a clean chit yet and initiated a fresh inquiry against him for spreading “misinformation” about the probe report and for making “anti-government” political comments during the period of his suspension.

In September 2020, the Allahabad high court set aside the National Security Act order passed against him for allegedly making inflammatory and provocative comments in a speech against the Citizenship Amendment Act at the Aligarh Muslim University in 2019 December.

The court termed the NSA order illegal and directed the state government to forthwith release him from jail. Khan had been booked under the stringent law on the day he was expected to be released on bail from Mathura jail where he was lodged after his arrest in the case on January 29, 2020.

In New Book, Kafeel Khan Reveals All About the Gorakhpur Oxygen Tragedy

The book is a harrowing tale of a doctor’s ordeal and gives a compelling account of the tragic deaths of several children and the disturbing events that ensued.

Gorakhpur: The 2017 oxygen shortage tragedy at Gorakhpur’s BRD Medical College that led to the deaths of more than a hundred children was not a random accident but the outcome of the administration’s apathetic and insensitive attitude towards government hospitals. The aftermath of the incident also exposed how the government machinery, instead of learning from such horrific accidents, works to suppress the truth, protect the culprits and punish those who try to expose the reality.

The reportage on the oxygen fiasco meanwhile rendered it synonymous with the identity of Dr Kafeel Khan, who was then an assistant professor in the hospital’s Department of Paediatrics. The incident and the ensuing fate of Khan was widely reported in the media.

But what actually happened and who were the real culprits? Were they shielded by the powers that be? Those who knew the truth have either kept mum on the issue or have sided with the government’s narrative. The government has made claims like, “The hospital did have an oxygen crisis but that’s not what killed the children”, “The children died because they were gravely ill”, “Children die of encephalitis in July and August every year” and that the government and its ministers or senior officials cannot to be blamed for the deaths as the collgeadministration was negligent. Khan, the government said, was solely responsible because he failed to inform his seniors about the oxygen crisis and had committed medical negligence and used to practice privately.

Khan was sacked last month, four years following the incident. Two doctors and four employees of BRD Medical College, who were also accused of negligence, have been reinstated. R.K. Mishra, who was the principal of the college at the time of the deaths, and Ppharmacist Gajanand Jaiswal have retired after being reinstated. Little is known of the whereabouts of Manish Bhandari, the owner of Pushpa Sales, the oxygen supplier, ever since he was released from jail.

The government did not compensate the families of the children who died in the tragedy, claiming that their deaths were not caused by oxygen shortage.

The terrible incident is no longer talked about, except when it is brought up in conjunction with news related to Dr Kafeel Khan.

Recently, Khan’s 300-page book titled The Gorakhpur Hospital Tragedy: A Doctor’s Memoir of a Deadly Medical Crisis was published by Pan Macmillan India, reinvigatoring a discussion on the deaths.

Kafeel Khan
The Gorakhpur Hospital Tragedy: A Doctor’s Memoir of a Deadly Medical Crisis
Pan Macmillan (December 2021)

In the book, Khan describes a series of incidents beginning on the dreadful night when the hospital ran out of oxygen to the day of his arrest, subsequent imprisonment and his dismissal from service more than four years later. The book not only weaves together the scattered strands of information surrounding the oxygen shortage tragedy of the BRD Medical College on August 10, 2017 but also brings to the fore many new facts which remained unknown till now.

The oxygen fiasco was reported in both national and international media. While it is true that the incident remained in the news a long time afterwards, most of these speculations only went on to further mystify and blur the facts instead of providing clarity. The book tries to blow the lid off the attempts to conceal the truth behind the incident in a ‘calculated manner’ and uncovers the system’s attempts to make a doctor the scapegoat to cover up its failure.

The book also highlights various aspects of Khan’s personal life. We come to know that his father was an engineer in the irrigation department. Kafeel Khan was brought up in an open-minded atmosphere and spent his early days in a locality where residents hailed from different religious backgrounds. They celebrated Holi as zealously as Eid. On Diwali, he narrates, his family received many sweets from their Hindu neighbours which he would carry in his school tiffin for an entire week. 

From his family, the story quickly progresses to the events of August 10, 2017. On the fateful night, Khan received a WhatsApp message on his mobile about depleting oxygen levels in the encephalitis ward. He was on leave that day as his sister was visiting the family from Oman and he wanted to spend time with her. But when he received the message, he decided to immediately go to the hospital. On his way, he kept calling his superiors at the medical college. While most of his calls went unanswered, those who did pick up failed to grasp the gravity of the situation and tried to pass the buck. 

Also Read: Did Dr Kafeel Pay a Heavy Price Because His Name Is Khan?

In his book, Khan gives telling details of the situation he witnessed in the ward that night and how he handled it. He describes the wailing and pleading parents while their children battled for life and the utter helplessness of the doctors, nurses and ward boys. There were 313 children admitted in the hospital’s pediatric and neonatal intensive care units that night. At 7:30 pm, the oxygen plant had run out of oxygen and the ventilators began sounding the warning beeps. As a contingency arrangement, 52 jumbo cylinders kept in the hospital reserve were installed, which were exhausted within four hours and the oxygen supply was completely cut off to the wards, including the encephalitis ward. By the time Khan reached the hospital, eight children had already died.

He and his colleagues immediately started giving oxygen from Ambu bags to the children on ventilator support. The condition of all the children in the ward was assessed and oxygen from Ambu bags was given to those who needed oxygen the most. A three-year-old girl’s condition deteriorated and despite the staff’s best efforts, could not be saved. The NICU witnessed similar chaotic scenes. The relatives of the patients, who had been informed about the lack of oxygen, were either yelling at the hospital staff or begging them to save their children. 

Meanwhile Khan was faced with the dual challenge of treating the deteriorating condition of the children, on one hand, and arranging for oxygen cylinders on the other. A truck carrying a jumbo cylinder was on its way from Imperial Gas Limited in Faizabad but there was no sign of it until 1 am. Till then, no senior officer of the BRD Medical College had reached the hospital. In their absence, Khan decided to fetch three jumbo cylinders from a nearby hospital in his private vehicle. He then approached eight more hospitals for help, ferried as many cylinders as he could arrange and tried to replenish the oxygen supply. But it was not enough. The encephalitis ward was consuming 16 jumbo cylinders every 45 minutes. The truck that arrived from IGL Faizabad at 2 am brought only 50 cylinders. Kafeel arranged for a truck with the help of central oxygen operator Balwant, and sent an outsourced worker to the Khalilabad plant paying Rs 20,000 from his own pocket. The oxygen plant had agreed to supply jumbo cylinders at Rs 350 per cylinder.

Despite being informed of the urgent need for oxygen, a plant in Gida refused to supply oxygen saying that its contract with the college had been terminated and handed over to IGL Faizabad. It would supply oxygen only after the contract has been renewed, the plant said.

Despite Khan and his team’s night-long efforts to save the children and arrange cylinders, 23 children in the PICU and NICU and 18 adult patients in the medicine ward had succumbed by 10 am the next day.

A room containing oxygen tanks is seen in the BRD Medical College and Hospital in Gorakhpur. Photo: Reuters

When there was a shortage of vehicles to cart the jumbo cylinders, Khan reached out to the Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB) stationed in the Fertilizer Campus on the morning of August 11 and contacted the DIG to provide a truck and cylinders. The SSB did not have jumbo cylinders, but they provided a truck and 12 jawans so that cylinders could be swiftly transported from the plant to the medical college.

According to the details in the book, on the afternoon of August 11, the then district magistrate Rajiv Rautela contacted Khan and after being apprised of the whole situation assured that oxygen would be provided. He asked the Gida plant, which had earlier refused to entertain Kafeel’s request, to supply oxygen. Later, 50 jumbo cylinders arrived from IGL Faizabad in two trips. Kafeel also contacted the chief medical officer and the additional director (health), urging them to help solve the crisis. One said he was in a meeting and the other asked Khan to contact the chief medical superintendent regarding the arrangement of cylinders. One of these officers later became part of the committee that was formed to investigate the tragedy.

In the afternoon, a professor from the Department of Paediatrics reached the ward followed by the head of the department and the chief medical superintendent of the Nehru Hospital. Together, they wrote a letter to the principal of the BRD Medical College, urging him to arrange medical oxygen. 

By the evening of August 11, the news of children dying due to oxygen shortage had spread like wildfire and media persons began pouring in at the BRD Medical College. By then, a few local journalists and photographers had already reached the College and began reporting on the crisis. The district magistrate issued the first official statement about the incident in a press conference at 7:30 pm that day and announced the formation of a committee to investigate the deaths. This committee was asked to submit its report within 24 hours.

Initially, the reports in media and on social media hailed Kafeel as a hero for his efforts to muster up oxygen cylinders using his personal resources and save the lives of children. On August 12, the state health minister Siddharth Nath Singh and medical education minister Ashutosh Tandon reached the college. Singh, in a press conference, denied the death of any child due to lack of oxygen and made the insensitive ‘children die every year in August‘ remark. The statement was widely condemned. 

On August 13, a tanker of liquid oxygen arrived at the hospital at 1 am and the supply was restored. Kafeel, who had tirelessly spent 48 hours on rigorous duty since August 10, finally returned home only to wake up to a fresh twist the next morning. A new tale had been spun and a fresh narrative was played out in the media. 

In the morning, J.P. Nadda and chief minister Yogi Adityanath arrived at the BRD Medical College and Khan was summoned. He reached the hospital hoping to receive a pat on the back for his efforts but he was in for a rude shock and suddenly found himself in the crosshairs.

According to Khan, the moment he appeared before the chief minister, he said in a reprimanding tone, “Tu hai Dr Kafeel Khan?” (So, you are Dr Kafeel Khan?)

“Yes, Sir.”

“Tune cylinder ka arrangement kiya tha?” (Are you the one who arranged cylinders?) 

“Yes, Sir.”

“Ye 4-5 cylinder la kar tu ne kitni jaan bacha li? Tu sochta hai cylinders ki vyvastha kar ke tu bohot bara hero ban gaya; dekhta hoon tujhe.” (How many lives did you save with a few cylinders? Do you think by arranging cylinders you became a hero? I will take care of you.)”

Uttar Pradesh chief minister Yogi Adityanath. Photo: PTI

Khan was suddenly the villain, accused of leaking the news of oxygen shortage to the media. However, when he tried to speak up and provide a clarification, senior officers stopped him from doing so.

In the press conference, the chief minister dismissed the claim that the children died owing to a dearth of oxygen. He announced the formation of a committee headed by the chief secretary to probe the incident and said that its report would be submitted in a week.

As soon as the press conference was over, media persons flocked the hospital of Khan’s wife. A mob also attacked the hospital and a showroom owned by Khan’s brother, pelting stones and vandalising them. On social media, Khan was vilified as an ‘oxygen thief’, and a ‘pawn of the opposition leaders’. The TV news channels began referring to him as the head of the paediatric department, the deputy principal, the superintendent of the hospital, blaming him entirely for the disaster. 

Khan was advised to take leave until the turmoil subsided. On August 16, the report of the committee constituted by the DM was submitted, which did not fix the responsibility on Khan but also failed to mention, let alone laud Khan’s efforts to arrange oxygen cylinders at such a critical time.

Finally, on August 21, the report of the committee headed by the chief secretary came out and an FIR was lodged against nine people, including Khan and everyone was gradually arrested. 

The police began raiding his house daily, making searches and harassing the family members. His sister’s house in Lucknow was also raided and his brother was taken into custody. He decided to surrender and finally did so at the Special Task Force office in Lucknow. The STF brought him to Gorakhpur and handed him over to the Gorakhpur police, who put him in jail.

The next few pages of the book record a horrendous account of Khan’s seven-month long stay in jail – an 800-prisoner facility with 1,897 prisoners in it.

In jail, he met several high-profile prisoners – Kaka, D. Ram, V. Singh, Shailesh, Vishwa and also ‘Mantriji’ who is serving a life sentence for the murder of a poetess. Most of them showed Khan kindness. Despite all the media propaganda, they treated him with respect for being a good Samaritan and responsible doctor who tried to save the lives of children. Khan writes that most of the undertrial prisoners spend long periods in jail in the hope of being freed or granted bail but 99% of them are met with disappointment as cases remain in limbo for years. 

Also Read: A Single Photograph Was All it Took to Dramatically Alter Dr Kafeel Khan’s Life

Khan also details a first-hand account of corruption inside the prison walls. Any prisoner can avail the facilities that he can afford. Under this covert system, rates are fixed for kachchi baithki and pakki baithki – levels of evading laborious chores in jail. Then there are rates of bidi, cigarette, vegetables, eggs, bottled water as well as meeting with relatives. To avail such luxuries, one has to keep one’s mouth shut – besides abiding by the other rules. Based on hierarchy of caste, religion, connections and nature of crime, the dark underbelly of the prison is governed by a handful prisoners. 

While awaiting bail, Khan tried to piece together the episodes of the oxygen tragedy. From jail, he contacted everyone including Manish Bhandari, the director of Pushpa Sales, the college principal  Mishra, and Dr Satish. Finally, he saw the whole picture. He learnt that both the Gida gas plant, which had refused to supply oxygen to the hospital despite being aware of the deaths of children, as well as IGL Faizabad with which the hospital had signed a contract in 2017, had close relations with the ruling party leaders. Also, Khan claims, Pushpa Sales had not only failed to pay the dues to the top officials of health and administration but also to line the pockets of various ministers, a matter which was brought up in several official meetings. Hence, the authorities behaved in a lackadaisical manner while the children were gasping for breath. Later, a hunt was launched for ‘a neck to fit the noose’ and a communal government found Khan as the perfect scapegoat, he says. 

Dr Kafeel Khan, after his release from jail. Photo: @Saurabhsherry/Irfan Ghazi.

The final section of the book describes Khan’s ordeal after his release from jail, various charges levelled against him and his re-arrest. He was arrested from the Bahraich district hospital, where he had gone to investigate the death of children admitted for encephalitis. Later, charges under the National Security Act were slapped on him for a speech he had delivered during an anti-CAA-NRC protest at the Aligarh Muslim University. He was released after the Allahabad high court quashed the NSA charges.

However, despite getting a clean chit on two key charges in the departmental inquiry of the oxygen shortage incident, he was sacked. The book has several more details. An entire chapter is dedicated to his rural health campaign, under which he organised medical camps, especially creating awareness about encephalitis, locally known as chamki fever, in various flood-affected parts of Bihar and Assam.

Watch | Dr Kafeel Khan to Move Court Over His Dismissal From Service

The Uttar Pradesh government said Khan was found guilty in the probe into the circumstances leading to the death of children in a Gorakhpur hospital.

Paediatrician Dr Kafeel Khan, who was suspended in 2017 in the aftermath of the death of 70 children due to oxygen shortage, has been dismissed by Gorakhpur’s BRD Medical College and Hospital.

According to the Uttar Pradesh principal secretary (medical education) Alok Kumar, Khan has been sacked after being found guilty in the probe into the circumstances leading to the death of children in the hospital.

As the matter is “sub-judice”, Kumar added, the detailed information about Khan’s dismissal will be given to the court. Khan was attached to the office of director general medical education (DGME) after his suspension on August 22, 2017, in the wake of the children’s death.

Mukul Singh Chauhan of The Wire speaks to Khan, who says he will challenge the UP government’s decision in court. Watch the video for more details.

Allahabad HC Stays Second Suspension Order Against Kafeel Khan

Justice Saral Srivastava directed the authorities to conclude the inquiry against Khan within one month.

New Delhi: The Allahabad high court has stayed the second suspension order against Dr Kafeel Khan.

On July 31, 2019, the doctor was suspended for the second time while he was already under suspension for allegedly forcibly treating patients at the Bahraich District Hospital and criticising policies of the government.

He was earlier suspended following a tragedy at Gorakhpur’s BRD Medical College, where around 60 children had died in August 2017 due to an alleged shortage of oxygen.

Hearing a writ petition filed by Khan, Justice Saral Srivastava, however, directed the authorities to conclude the inquiry against him within one month.

The court further directed that the petitioner shall cooperate in the inquiry and in case he does not, the disciplinary authority may proceed to conclude the inquiry ex parte.

While fixing the hearing for November 11, the court also asked the state authorities to file a reply in four weeks.

The counsel for the petitioner had argued that the suspension order was passed on July 31, 2019 and more than two years have passed but the probe has not been concluded. Hence, the suspension order cannot remain in force in view of the judgment of the apex court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary versus Union of India (2015) 7 SCC 291, the counsel said.

He further argued that since the petitioner is already a suspended employee, therefore, there is no purpose of passing a second suspension order.

He submitted that there is no rule which permits the state government to issue a fresh suspension order when the employee is already under suspension.

However, state government’s counsel submitted that the inquiry report against the petitioner has been submitted on August 27, 2021, a copy of which has been sent to the petitioner on August 28, asking him to submit objections.He said the inquiry will be concluded expeditiously.

Last month, the Allahabad high court had quashed charges and criminal proceedings against Khan based on a speech he delivered during the anti-Citizenship (Amendment) Act protests at Aligarh Muslim University.

As The Wire has reported before, the Uttar Pradesh police has filed a number of cases and even arrested Khan on two occasions for his dissenting opinions and speaking out against government policies.

(With PTI inputs)

Explainer: Why the Allahabad HC Quashed Charges Against Dr Kafeel Khan

The UP police’s failure to obtain the necessary sanction from the state government only vindicates his innocence. Khan joins a long list of accused who successfully used the law to expose the state’s hypocrisy.

New Delhi: The requirement of sanction for prosecution in offences against the state is a safeguard against human rights violations. In some instances, however, it has ensured  the impunity for such violations by the security forces.   Thus the ‘competent authority’ which sanctions permission for prosecution in such offences, under Section 196 CrPC, can either refuse to sanction prosecution to avoid frivolous litigation or accord it if it sees prima facie merit in the allegations against the accused. The “competent authority” can be the Union government, the state government or the district magistrate.

The state’s refusal to sanction prosecution against security forces alleged to have caused human rights violations came in for criticism from rights bodies several times, especially in Jammu and Kashmir, and in some cases even led to litigation by the victims who challenged such refusal. When the same authority ignores its obligation to either accord or deny sanction in the cases of prosecution of innocent citizens, it is an admission that the allegations against the accused lack substance, thus vindicating the plea for quashing of charges by the competent court.

On Thursday, the Allahabad high court’s single-judge bench of Justice Gautam Chaudhary quashed the entire criminal proceedings against Dr Kafeel Khan for his speech against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA) at a protest meeting at Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) in December 2019 on the ground that the police did not obtain the requisite sanction from the state government before filing the charge-sheet under Sections 153A, 153B and 505(2) of the Indian Penal Code.

On Thursday, the single judge of the high court remanded the case back to the court of the chief judicial magistrate, Aligarh directing that cognisance of the charges against Khan under these sections should be taken only after obtaining prior sanction of prosecution by the competent authority under Section 196 CrPC.

On September 2, 2017, Khan, who was the nodal officer of the Baba Raghav Das Medical College and Hospital, Gorakhpur, Uttar Pradesh, was arrested under various sections of the IPC, Prevention of Corruption Act and the Indian Medical Council Act for the death of infants at the hospital, due to the lack of oxygen. He was jailed for nine months on charges of medical negligence, corruption and dereliction of duty.

On April 25, 2018, the Allahabad high court granted him bail, saying that he was not needed in custody since the chargesheet had been filed. On September 27, 2019, an internal hospital inquiry committee cleared him of the allegations, noting that he was not the nodal officer of the encephalitis ward, and therefore, it was not negligence on his part that led to the deaths of children.

Also read: With CBI Unable to Produce FBI Expert in Court, Bhanwari Devi Trial at Impasse Since 2018

On December 12, 2019, Khan delivered a speech at the anti-CAA protest at AMU. On January 30, 2020, the Uttar Pradesh police arrested him for his speech alleging it was inflammatory and provocative. He was remanded to judicial custody in Mathura jail.

On February 14, 2020, charges under the National Security Act were invoked against him. The NSA allows the government to detain people for up to one year without a trial if they suspect that they could disrupt public order, endanger national security or ties with foreign countries. On September 1, 2020, the Allahabad high court set aside Khan’s detention under the NSA, securing his release from jail. The high court held that his detention under the NSA was not sustainable in the eye of law as his speech at AMU did not disclose any effort to promote hatred or violence.

Similar cases

The quashing of charges against Khan on Thursday is one more instance of how the failure to comply with Section 196 CrPC by the police in offences against the state can eventually expose the abuse of the legal process by the state which foisted baseless allegations against the accused. Even in cases which prima facie merited prosecution, the courts gave the benefit of doubt to the accused on the technical ground that sanction was not obtained from the state.

In Swaraj Thackeray v State of Jharkhand (2008), the Jharkhand high court quashed the charges under sections 153A and 153B of IPC against the Maharashtra Nav Nirman Sena leader, Raj Thackeray, on the ground that the Jharkhand government had not accorded the requisite sanction for prosecution for offences, which prima facie seemed sustainable. Thackeray had allegedly made provocative speeches against citizens of north India, especially Biharis, living in Mumbai.

In Sarfaraz Sheikh v The State of Madhya Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh high court held as follows:

“Taking cognisance of an offence kickstarts the prosecution of a delinquent and involves a process of interference with his personal liberty; therefore, the requirement of prior sanction of the State Government is a basic jurisdictional fact before further action may be taken for taking cognisance of the offence. Hence, this Court is unable to accept the contention that subsequent sanction accorded on 16.08.2016 shall legalise the prosecution initiated after taking cognisance on 05.03.2016 and  hence, contention is rejected.”

In Mohd. Waris @Raza v State, Jail Appeal No.8326 of 2007 decided on August 5, 2019 by the Allahabad high court, the prosecution strangely proceeded in complete and absolute ignorance of Section 196 CrPC, leaving no option to the court but to quash the charges against the accused.

In State v Abdul Qayoom ,decided on March 16, 2021, the high court of Jammu and Kashmir (by Justices Sanjeev Kumar and Puneet Gupta) dismissed the appeal of the state against the order of the trial court acquitting the accused.  Charges framed under Sections 121, 122 and 123 of the Ranbir Penal Code failed on the legal ground that the prosecution has not been initiated on a complaint made by the district magistrate and, therefore, the provisions of Section 196 CrPC have not been complied with. In this case, the accused was alleged to have links with militants from Pakistan and also worked as their guide.

In Zakir Hussain v Union Territory of Ladakh and Others, decided on February 11 this year by Justice Sanjeev Kumar of the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir, the accused allegedly recorded a conversation between him and the co-accused which was extremely objectionable, containing derogatory references to the role of the Indian Army in the Galwan misadventure of armed forces of China. The accused was suspended from discharging the functions of councillor of LAHDC (Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Council) Kargil. The CJM, Kargil, noted that the charge-sheet submitted by the police was incomplete sans requisite sanction in terms of Section 196 CrPC, as the allegations were under Sections 124A, 153A, 153B and 505(2), 120B of the IPC.

Also read: ‘He’ll Die Without Surgery’: Kin of Man Jailed in Hathras Case Allege Severe Neglect

The police had no authority to either register an FIR or embark on investigation, much less to present the challan/final report before the judicial magistrate concerned, the high court held. “The court can take cognisance only on a complaint filed by the district magistrate and in the instant case no such complaint has been filed by the district magistrate, Kargil,” the high court noted. “Mere derogatory or objectionable words are not sufficient to invoke the provisions of Section 124 or 153A of the IPC unless the written or spoken words have the tendency or intention of inciting disorder or disturbance of public peace or public violence,” the trial court had held in this case.

As the petitioner-accused was a councillor in the LAHDC, Kargil, he is a public servant in terms of Section 54 of the LAHDC Act, 1997, and therefore, no cognisance against him could be taken by the court unless there is a prior sanction under Section 197 of the CrPC, the high court held. The trial court had erroneously accepted the challan and proceeded in the matter when the requisite sanction under Section 196 as also under Section 197 of the CrPC had not been granted by the competent authority, the high court found.

The high court held that the bar created by the provisions of Section 196 CrPC is against taking cognisance by the court and there is, thus, no bar against registration of an FIR or investigation by the police, if the information received by the police discloses commission of a cognisable offence. In the instant case all the offences, with which the petitioner has been charged, are cognisable. (Cognisable is an offence where the police may arrest without warrant). “Provisions of Section 154 CrPC are not controlled by Section 196 of the code. Section 196 comes into operation only at the time when the court is to take cognisance of the offence and proceed in the matter in a particular way as prescribed under the law,” the high court explained in this case.

The CJM should have returned the challan to the police for its presentation after seeking previous sanction of the competent authority. The high court concluded that the offences charged against the petitioner are not made out, and therefore, the registration of FIR, which has culminated into filing of the final police report without previous sanction from the competent authority before the CJM, Kargil is sheer abuse of the process of law. The court invoked its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC and quashed all the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner including the impugned FIR with regard to the audio clip.

In State of Karnataka and another v Pastor P.Raju (2006), the Supreme Court distinguished taking cognisance of an offence and issuance of process. The court held that previous sanction of the Union government, state government or district magistrate is mandatory to take cognisance of an offence punishable under Sections 153B or 505(2) or (3) of the IPC or a criminal conspiracy to commit such offence. Police can submit a report as a result of investigation before a magistrate without the previous sanction of the stated authorities, and there will be no violation of Section 196 (1-A) CrPC. But the court shall not take cognisance thereof unless there is previous sanction by the Union government, state government or DM, as the case may be, the Supreme Court held.

In George Mangalapilly v State of MP, Madhya Pradesh high court, on August 27 last year, quashed criminal proceedings pending against the accused in respect of offences under Sections 153B(1) and 295A for want of proper sanction. It relied on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Smt.Nagawwa v Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi (1976) that if the complaint suffers from fundamental legal defects, such as want of sanction or absence of complaint by legally competent authority and the like, order of the magistrate can be quashed or set aside on the above ground.

In Kanhaiya Kumar, the Delhi government accorded sanction for his prosecution for allegedly making a seditious speech, overruling legal advice which recommended refusal.  The Aam Aadmi Party government in Delhi justified its decision on the ground that it does not interfere with the legal process in criminal cases. The Delhi government’s decision in the matter surprised observers, because the Delhi police is not under its jurisdiction, but answerable to the Centre. Kanhaiya Kumar, however, welcomed the Delhi government’s sanction in the matter, saying it will give an opportunity to prove his innocence.

Dr Kafeel Khan’s case, however, shows that where the lines are blurred between the state and the police, as in Uttar Pradesh, the implications could be different. The failure to accord sanction on the part of the state to the prosecution of offences against it could well suggest that the allegations levelled against the accused are hollow. As the allegations lack substance, the state perhaps saw merit in letting technical grounds determine their outcome, to avoid the final embarrassment of losing the case in the court of law.

Kafeel Khan Added to List of ‘History-Sheeters’ in Gorakhpur

Kafeel Khan’s brother Adeel Khan, however, told news agency PTI that the history-sheet against the doctor was opened on June 18, 2020, but the information was given to the media on Friday.

Gorakhpur: Dr Kafeel Khan has been included in a list of “history-sheeters” in Gorakhpur district of Uttar Pradesh.

Khan was among 81 people who have been included in the list on the instruction of senior superintendent of police Jogendra Kumar.

The district now has a total of 1,543 history-sheeters, or persons with a criminal record.

Kafeel Khan’s brother Adeel Khan, however, told news agency PTI that the history-sheet against the doctor was opened on June 18, 2020, but the information was given to the media on Friday.

In a video message released on Saturday, Kafeel Khan said, “The UP government has opened my history-sheet. They say that they will monitor me for life. Good, give two security guards who will keep an eye on me for 24 hours. At least, I will be able to save myself from fake cases.”

“In Uttar Pradesh, the situation is such that the criminals are not monitored, but the history-sheet of innocent persons is opened,” he charged.

Khan was propelled to national attention in 2017, during the Gorakhpur hospital tragedy in which more than a 100 children died due to the lack of oxygen. He was among those arrested, with reports suggesting that he was made the scapegoat for the tragedy.

He was eventually cleared of all charges in the case by an internal committee in Septemebr 2019, but the UP government later ordered a fresh probe.

Several cases have been registered against him since then.

Khan was arrested in January 2020 after a speech he had delivered at the Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) on December 10, 2019, during the anti-Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA) protests. He was subsequently booked under the stringent National Security Act (NSA).

On September 1, 2020, the Allahabad high court had quashed Khan’s detention under the NSA and ordered his immediate release, saying his speech at the AMU didn’t promote hatred or violence.

In his video message, Khan also said he had written to the state government requesting it to reinstate him at his post in Gorakhpur’s Baba Raghav Das (BRD) Medical College.

(With PTI inputs)

‘A Good Judgment’: SC Refuses to Interfere With HC Order Quashing Kafeel Khan’s NSA Detention

‘However, the observation will not impact any other proceedings,’ the apex court held, referring to criminal cases against the Gorakhpur doctor.

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday refused to interfere with the Allahabad high court verdict quashing the detention of Dr Kafeel Khan under the National Security Act (NSA) and ordered his immediate release.

A bench headed by Chief Justice S.A. Bobde, which was hearing the Uttar Pradesh government’s plea challenging the high court’s September 1 verdict, said it appeared to be a good judgment.

“It seems to be a good order by high court…We see no reason to interfere with the high court order,” CJI Bobde said, according to LiveLaw.

When Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for Uttar Pradesh, told the bench that observation made by the high court exonerated Khan in the criminal proceedings, the apex court said the observation did not impact the criminal case.

“We will not interfere in the judgment. However, the observation will not impact any other proceedings,” said the bench, also comprising Justices A.S. Bopanna and V. Ramasubramanian.

The CJI denied senior advocate Indira Jaising’s request to expunge the observation on the judgment not impacting criminal prosecution.

“Criminal cases will be decided on their own merits. The observations in a preventive detention judgment cannot impact criminal prosecution,” the bench added.

Also read: A Timeline: The Cases Against Dr Kafeel Khan and His Arrests

The Uttar Pradesh government had filed a special leave petition in the Supreme Court against the high court’s judgment, delivered by a bench of Chief Justice Govind Mathur and Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh, who had held that the doctor’s detention, was “not sustainable in the eye of law”.

The high court also noted that the Aligarh district magistrate had quoted selectively from a speech given by Khan at the Aligarh Muslim University to justify his detention, “ignoring its true intent” which was not to promote hatred.

The order came after the Supreme Court on August 11 had asked the high court to decide on the plea for Khan’s release within 15 days.

Khan was released from the Mathura Jail on September 2.

Khan had hit the headlines after the 2017 tragedy at Gorakhpur’s Baba Raghav Das (BRD) Medical College, in which several children died due to a lack of oxygen cylinders. Initially lauded for arranging emergency oxygen cylinders, he later faced action along with nine other doctors and staff members of the hospital, all of whom are out on bail. A report published on The Wire, by Manoj Singh, essays how investigation into the tragedy was controversial and in places, scuttled.

Justice Lokur: Our Fundamental Rights to Free Speech and Protest Are Being Eroded and Mauled

It is time for the establishment to realise that the people of this country mean well and as in any democracy, there are bound to be different points of view.

The gradual erosion of one of our most precious fundamental rights – the inalienable right to freedom of speech and expression – is leading to the gradual destruction of our human right to dissent and protest.

This lethal cocktail is adversely impacting the liberty of all those who dare to speak up. Article 21 of our constitution, the right to life and personal liberty, is under a silent threat and we all know the consequence of losing our liberty. Simply put, we will cease to be a democratic republic. Of course, our fundamental rights cannot be absolute and so the constitution has placed a few reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right to free speech and these include restrictions placed in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, security of the state, friendly relations with foreign states, public order, decency or morality, contempt of court, defamation and incitement to an offence.

Yet, it is important to note that these restrictions can be imposed only by law enacted by parliament and the restrictions have to be reasonable.

Today, freedom of speech is being eroded and mauled through twisting and turning the law if not abusing it altogether. The law needs to be objectively interpreted but subjective satisfaction has taken over and the consequences are unpalatable: dissent or expression of a different point of view has become an issue to the extent that bona fide speech sometimes becomes a security threat.

Some cynics glibly suggest that if the speaker is not guilty, he or she will be acquitted of the charges framed, but the fact of the matter is that detention as an under-trial is a gut-wrenching experience for anyone and particularly for a person whose cries of innocence fall on deaf ears. Such a person looks to the judiciary for protecting his or her freedom of speech and liberty but gets overwhelmed by the painfully slow justice delivery system. 

I propose to discuss our fundamental right of free speech and expression and the right to disagree in different compartments and I hope the picture will reveal why we might need to conduct an inquest in due course of time.

Umar Khalid, who has been held for sedition for a speech given by him in Amravati, Maharashtra. Photo: Umar Khalid Official/Facebook

Free speech and sedition

Ours is a country governed by the rule of law, so let us first appreciate what the law has to say on some aspects of freedom of speech.

In my opinion, one of the worst forms of curtailment of the freedom of speech is charging a person with sedition. Way back in 1962, a constitution bench of the Supreme Court in Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar considered the constitutionality of sedition in Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code as a penal offence. While doing so, it was held that the freedom of speech and expression:

“… has to be guarded against becoming a licence for vilification and condemnation of the Government established by law, in words, which incite violence or have the tendency to create public disorder. A citizen has a right to say or write whatever he likes about the Government, or its measures, by way of criticism or comment, so long as he does not incite people to violence against the Government established by law or with the intention of creating public disorder.”

A little later in the decision, it was held:

“The provisions of the sections [that is, Sections 124A and 505 of the Indian Penal Code] read as a whole, along with the explanations, make it reasonably clear that the sections aim at rendering penal only such activities as would be intended, or have a tendency, to create disorder or disturbance of public peace by resort to violence. As already pointed out, the explanations appended to the main body of the section make it clear that criticism of public measures or comment on Government action, however strongly worded, would be within reasonable limits and would be consistent with the fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression.”

The Supreme Court, therefore, drew a correlation between sedition and violence, sedition and inciting violence, and sedition and tendency to incite violence – not just simple violence but violence of such a degree as to bring it within the purview of public disorder.

Also read: Selectively Quoting His Speech, BJP MPs Blame Umar Khalid for Delhi Riots

So, when you have rival gangs confronting each other and one of them shouts maro (‘kill’), a law and order situation of rioting and attempt to murder arises, not of sedition. The police, lawyers and judges have dealt with all such cases purely as a law and order problem. However, depending on the occasion and context, when a speaker raises a slogan at a public gathering of supporters by shouting ‘goli maro’, a charge could possibly be laid of tending to incite violence or incitement to violence and raising a public order issue rather than a law and order issue. The distinction is quite clear. And should be clear to any policeman and magistrate.

Anurag Thakur, who shouted ‘goli maaro salon ko’. Photo: Facebook/official.anuragthakur

On the other hand, when there is a call to protest for a cause without any incitement to violence, it would not be sedition under any circumstances.

For example, when a call was made for large numbers to assemble on the lawns of India Gate to protest against the rape and murder of Nirbhaya, the organisers of the protest were not committing sedition. Similarly, when India Against Corruption peacefully protested on the Ram Lila grounds, the organisers could not be held liable for sedition.

This is extremely important for distinguishing between free speech and sedition, but unfortunately the distinction is being lost sight of by the establishment.

The frequent use of the law against sedition began sometime in 2012, during the India Against Corruption movement. Among the first few persons to be arrested for sedition was a political cartoonist who depicted the national emblem of three lions and the Parliament building in a manner unacceptable to the establishment.

The cartoonist was charged with having violated the provisions of the State Emblem of India (Prohibition of Improper Use) Act, 2005. I have reservations whether an offence is made out under this law and I will not be surprised if the police also felt that way. But perhaps the idea was to keep that cartoonist in custody by hook or by crook and so the charge of sedition was added.  The law was obviously twisted to sustain this charge since the cartoon did not incite or have a tendency to incite violence. But the objective was achieved and the cartoonist was sent to jail for a while. Interestingly, in due course, the charge of sedition was withdrawn against him, but I will not be surprised if the incident had a chilling effect on some political cartoonists.

The companion law adverted to by the Supreme Court, that is, Section 505 of the IPC, was made use of against two young women for a Facebook post in 2012. One of them questioned the need for declaring a holiday on the death of a political leader and the other ‘liked’ that post.

At best, this was only an expression of an opinion that one may agree or disagree with. Unfortunately, both the young women were arrested for creating or promoting enmity, hatred or ill-will between classes. So, the expression of a possibly unpalatable opinion became a criminal offence against the establishment. The Facebook post caused anguish amongst supporters of the political leader and they vandalised the hospital of the girl’s uncle.

An innocent tweet led to three consequences: silencing the young women and perhaps many others who held the same or a similar opinion; sending a chilling message to others to be careful about voicing opinions, and finally imprisonment and damage to personal property. In other words, tweet at your own risk, a lesson that the Supreme Court sought to teach Prashant Bhushan quite recently.

Prashant Bhushan holding up Re 1 after the Supreme Court’s sentencing order was announced. Photo: Twitter/Prashant Bhushan

Free speech and cooked up cases

In recent years, new methods of silencing speech have been introduced: attribute something to a speaker that he or she never said. I find this simply amazing.

Try and visualise a police complaint filed against you for something you never said and you are kept in jail for several months and eventually set free after litigating for your rights. Imagine the trauma that you and your family would have to go through and on the other hand, the police get away without even a censure.

Well, this has actually happened.

A doctor delivered an address to students of the Aligarh Muslim University sometime in December 2019, criticising the Citizenship Amendment Act and the National Register of Citizens. More than one month later, he was arrested for making an inflammatory and provocative speech.

Also read: A Timeline: The Cases Against Dr Kafeel Khan and His Arrests

About 10 days later, he was granted bail but was not released for reasons that are not clear. However, immediately thereafter he was kept in preventive detention under the National Security Act by an order issued on February 13, 2020. This is a draconian law and entails detention without trial and is based on the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority who makes a prognosis of the future activity of the detenu.

In other words, the detaining authority says that he or she is satisfied on the basis of past conduct that the detenu is likely, in future, to act in a manner prejudicial to the security of the state or to the maintenance of public order. Therefore, it is necessary to preventively detain that person so as to prevent him or her from committing an offence. The only remedy available to a detenu under such circumstances is to show to an official advisory board that no case of a threat to national security is made out and after that to show to the court the violation of procedural rights guaranteed by the Constitution. 

Dr Kafeel Khan, after his release from jail. Photo: @Saurabhsherry/Irfan Ghazi.

The doctor challenged his preventive detention in the Allahabad high court and by a judgment and order passed on September 1, 2020 the preventive detention order was quashed. The doctor had been in preventive detention, without trial, for more than six months before being set free. After reading the judgment of the Allahabad high court quashing his detention order, I can safely say that any lawyer trained in the law of preventive detention will tell you that the detention order could not have been sustained under any circumstances. Almost every procedure known to law was violated.

Additionally, on a limited judicial review of the grounds of detention, the Allahabad high court concluded that the detenu was alleged to have said things which he did not. For example, while he spoke of national integrity, he was accused of promoting hatred; while he deprecated violence, he was accused of promoting violence. The high court said:

“A complete reading of the speech prima facie does not disclose any effort to promote hatred or violence. It also nowhere threatens peace and tranquillity of the city of Aligarh. The address gives a call for national integrity and unity among the citizens. The speech also deprecates any kind of violence. It appears that the District Magistrate had selective reading and selective mention for few phrases from the speech ignoring its true intent.” (emphasis added)

This is a classic instance of cooking up a case against a person with the intention of putting him behind bars for several months.

Also read: A Single Photograph Was All it Took to Dramatically Alter Dr Kafeel Khan’s Life

Another recent case on the same subject of attribution is that of a student activist, accused among things, of attempt to murder and making an inflammatory speech and inciting violence. The offending speech was made by her on February 25, 2020 and she was arrested three months later on May 25, 2020. The Delhi high court granted her bail after another three months by a judgment and order dated September 1, 2020 and while granting bail, it was noted that the prosecution had

“failed to produce any material that she in her speech instigated women of [a] particular community or gave hatred speech due to which [the] precious life of a young man has been sacrificed and property damaged. Admittedly, agitation was going on since long, print and electronic media was present throughout in addition to cameras of police department, but there is no such evidence which establishes that the alleged offence has taken place on the act done by the petitioner, except statements recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. much belatedly, though, those witnesses were allegedly … present at the spot throughout.” (emphasis added)

These cases, and there are others, lead to a frightening inference that if a citizen exercises the freedom of speech and says something that is not even distasteful, he or she can still be arrested on the basis of a fairy tale and will have to go through a long-drawn process for being set free. If that person does not say anything at all but is otherwise a thorn in the flesh of the establishment, even then that person can still be arrested and detained on some cooked up or trumped up charges.

Please try and imagine the impact of this and if you are old enough, please compare it to the period between 1975 and 1977 when persons were jailed for allegedly threatening the internal security of the country, without any evidence in this regard. We are gradually witnessing a somewhat similar situation, the only difference being that during the Emergency days the alleged threat was to the internal security of the country and today the alleged threat is to the sovereignty and integrity of the country.

Free speech and fake news

How does one define fake news and how does one distinguish it from misinformation or disinformation? Passing on fake news by a citizen, if it is narrowly interpreted, could lead to a charge of sedition in a given case. If that fake news is liberally interpreted, it could be described as misinformation and denied as untrue. Finally, a more liberal interpretation could describe that fake news as incorrect and it is not even worthy of denial. How does one look at propaganda disseminated by the establishment? Is it fake news, or misinformation or disinformation? Would it invite a charge of sedition against the purveyor of that propaganda? That question needs to be asked.

A few tweets, believed to be fake news relating to Kashmir, have attracted a charge of sedition against a university student and investigations have been going on against her for the past one year. The student tweeted to the effect that the Army was “entering houses at night, picking up boys, ransacking houses and deliberately spilling rations on the floor.” She also alleged that four men were called into an Army camp and interrogated (read tortured). A microphone was kept close by so that the screams of those being tortured could be heard in the area and the people terrorised.

The allegations were denied as baseless by the Army and it appears that it had closed the matter and no complaint was filed against her for the tweets. However, some public-spirited person lodged a police complaint alleging that this was a case of fake news that excited disaffection towards the government established by law and is, therefore, sedition. On this basis, the issue has been kept alive by the police for more than a year with no effective result as yet. The Army has closed the matter, but the police is still at it.

Also read: In Case Against Shehla Rashid, a Glimpse Into Centre’s Approach to Kashmir Crisis

Three questions arise from this episode: Can the tweets be categorised as seditious in light of the judgment of the Supreme Court? If the Army, against whose credibility the tweets were directed, has dismissed the allegations and not lodged any complaint and effectively closed the matter, should a complaint by a third party at all be entertained by the police? Finally, does it take more than a year to analyse a few tweets to determine if they are seditious or not, or are police investigations being used merely to silence her?

Similarly, a person in Punjab was charged with sedition for spreading fake news that ventilators were not available for COVID-19 patients in a particular district. Assuming this was not true, it could easily have been denied by the district administration, but a charge of sedition on him?

Contrast this case with another case of fake news where no action has been taken against an elected cabinet minister who made a bizarre claim that a particular brand of papad provides immunity from the coronavirus. So far, no one has dared to officially contradict the cabinet minister, except the coronavirus which attacked the cabinet minister and made him COVID positive, leading to his hospitalisation. The pandemic has generated a tremendous amount of fake news in our country and worldwide and the latest going around is that corona were can be cured by snorting cocaine, drinking alcohol and bleach. There is no doubt that fake news must be countered effectively and quickly, but surely, a charge of sedition is not the answer.

Apart from a vague definition of fake news and its subjective interpretation, these cases show that the establishment prefers to act against the weak and defenceless with what was recently described as an ‘iron hand‘ rather than against the privileged who can get away with saying anything. The fundamental right of freedom of speech cannot be applied arbitrarily.

Free speech and the press

In the last few years, the establishment has displayed a new determination and great ingenuity in securing conformity and obedience from the press. The cumulative effect is chilling. We all recall L.K. Advani’s observation that during the Emergency journalists were merely asked to bend but they chose to crawl. Today, there is no Emergency and nobody has asked the media to bend, yet the perception (maybe wrong) is that they are crawling. It is quite a mystery.

There are two possible reasons: The first is a June 2020 report by the Rights and Risks Analysis Group which recorded that “A total of at least 55 journalists faced arrest, registration of FIRs, summons or show causes notices, physical assaults, alleged destruction of properties and threats for reportage on COVID-19 or exercising freedom of opinion and expression during the national lockdown from 25 March to 31 May 2020.” These measures were taken in 20 states and union territories and included charges of sedition, promoting enmity among different groups, causing breach of peace and so on.

The second possible reason is that an unseen “iron hand” has been used to silence dissent and criticism.

In May, an egregious case concerning the freedom of speech related to the arrest of the editor of a news portal. His alleged crime of sedition was spreading fake news by speculating that the chief minister of the state is likely to be replaced for his inept handling of the pandemic and thereby exciting disaffection against the government. In this particular case, while rejecting the application for bail, the magistrate is reported to have said that the journalist was trying to destabilise the government and what he said was a contempt against the government. Fortunately, a higher court granted him bail but after he had spent about 15 days in custody.

In June, a senior and respected journalist had a sedition charge levelled against him for a YouTube show and had to petition the Supreme Court for staying his arrest. The allegations may have been reckless or bizarre (as they have been described) but the question is whether they can be classified as seditious given the law laid down by the Supreme Court over 50 years ago? The chilling message to the press is to crawl or else….

Just a few days ago, the horrible gang rape and murder of a young woman in Hathras resulted in another and rather ingenious method of restricting the freedom of the press. With a view to prohibit the media from reporting anything about the events, the establishment completely cordoned off the entire area with a few hundred policeman and issued a prohibitory order under Section 144 of the CrPC so that nobody could enter that area. Some intrepid journalists attempted, individually, to meet the family of the victim without violating the prohibitory order but were stopped from doing so on the basis of some undisclosed order said to have been passed by some higher-ups. This is nothing but an egregious violation of the freedom of the press through a bizarre abuse of the law.

Everyone is hearing and seeing what is going on, but is anybody listening? The other question to be asked in this context is can any serious journalist function fearlessly if an opinion expressed, however absurd or bizarre, leads to arrest and a charge of sedition followed by a long-drawn battle in the courts? Can such serious charges be levelled so casually – and remember a free press is the fourth pillar of democracy.

Weaponising the sedition law

The National Crime Records Bureau started keeping a record of sedition cases in 2014 and every year has seen a spike in sedition cases. The number reached a high of 70 cases in 2018. Figures for 2019 recently released by the National Crime Records Bureau reveal that 93 cases were registered – a 30% increase. Almost every state seems to have weaponised sedition as a means of silencing critics and the numbers are increasing. Any statement is good enough for a sedition case, and this is not in just a few states; it is in almost every state and Union territory.

On October 31, 1984 the day Mrs. Indira Gandhi was assassinated, two public servants shouted “Khalistan Zindabad”. The atmosphere in the country was charged and yet the Supreme Court held that this did not amount to sedition. The Supreme Court held:

“It does not appear to us that the police should have attached much significance to the casual slogans raised by two appellants, a couple of times and read too much into them. The prosecution has admitted that no disturbance, whatsoever, was caused by the raising of the slogans by the appellants and that in spite of the fact that the appellants raised the slogans a couple of times, the people, in general, were un-affected and carried on with their normal activities. The casual raising of the slogans, once or twice by two individuals alone cannot be said to be aimed at exciting or attempt to excite hatred or disaffection towards the Government as established by law in India.”

How things have changed since then. In an absolutely peaceful atmosphere, a teenager in Bengaluru raised a particular slogan three times and this resulted in her arrest on charges of sedition. Could this ever amount to an attempt to destabilise the government? But this teenager spent four months in jail before she was granted bail. Again in Karnataka, as many as 85 school children were interrogated by the police concerning a play in which a child recites what the authorities found to be an objectionable dialogue. The mother of the child and the teacher who oversaw the play were charged with sedition and arrested. Please try and imagine the trauma that the school children would have gone through with policemen and policewomen questioning kids over five days in school.

And while we are discussing destabilising the government, does horse trading of MLAs (let me be clear, this is not my expression, but one used by the Supreme Court), with a view to topple a duly elected government amount to sedition? Perhaps. In July, the Special Operations Group in Rajasthan filed FIRs against six MLAs for sedition because they had indulged in horse trading with a view to topple the government. However, just before the high court was to take up the challenge to the sedition charge, the allegations were withdrawn. A pity, because it would have been a fun case.

Free speech and the internet

District or state-wide internet shutdowns are becoming a tool to stifle freedom of expression through prior restraint. Shutdowns are effected through blanket orders under the guise of preventing breach of peace. In most cases, they are deployed when the authorities apprehend that people may exercise their fundamental right to freedom of expression to organise a peaceful protest that is critical of the State. An internet shutdown is a highly disproportionate response, since it affects everyone who uses the internet for professional reasons, for communicating with family or friends, for access to education, medical facilities and so on.

In December 2019, there was an internet shutdown across all districts of Assam and mobile internet was suspended for almost a week. While striking down the shutdown, the Gauhati high court noted that “… mobile internet services now play a major role in the daily walks of life, so much so, shut-down of the mobile internet service virtually amounts to bringing life to a grinding halt.” In light of the fact that the prevailing situation was normal and there was no justification for the continuation of the shutdown, the court directed the state to restore mobile internet services with effect from the evening of the same date.

In Allahabad, the high court took suo moto cognisance of the internet shutdown imposed in the city and while issuing notice observed that stoppage of internet services has paralysed the entire judicial system. I may mention that access to justice is a valuable human right.

In Anuradha Bhasin’s case, the Supreme Court in January 2020 while deciding the legitimacy of internet shutdowns as well as physical lockdowns in Jammu and Kashmir stopped short of declaring access to  internet as a fundamental right, but declared that “the right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) and the right to carry on any trade or business under 19(1)(g), using the medium of internet is constitutionally protected.”

In September last year, the Kerala high court recognised that access to the internet is essential for not only exercise of freedom of speech but also the right to education. It was noted that the UN Human Rights Council had declared that right to access the internet is a fundamental freedom.

We have the unenviable record of stifling freedom of speech and expression through the maximum number of internet shutdowns for prolonged periods in any vibrant democracy.

Conclusion

There is no doubt that the fundamental right to free speech is extremely important for any civilised democracy to survive. Similarly, the right to protest peaceably and without arms is also an equally important fundamental right guaranteed to all of us under the Constitution.

While it is important for each one of us to exercise our fundamental rights within reasonable limits laid down by law, there is a greater obligation on the establishment to ensure that the laws are not twisted, misused or abused in such a manner that citizens are deprived of fundamental rights that impact the liberty of an individual. We have seen several instances of deprivation of liberty with persons having to spend days and sometimes months in jail for remarks that would perhaps not attract any attention except for the fact that the establishment used draconian laws to silence those dissenting voices and thereby give them traction.

It is time for the establishment to realise that the people of this country mean well and as in any democracy, there are bound to be different points of view. These must be respected – otherwise the fabric of our society might disintegrate, and fraternity, one of the key words in the preamble to our Constitution might just become another dead idea.

Madan B. Lokur is a former judge of the Supreme Court of India.

Adapted from the full text of the speech delivered by Justice Madan B. Lokur, for this year’s Verghese Memorial Lecture, held under the auspices of the Media Foundation.

A Single Photograph Was All it Took to Dramatically Alter Dr Kafeel Khan’s Life

The life and times of a doctor who was launched into media as a hero one day and decried as the villain the next.

After spending seven months in prison, Dr Kafeel Khan was finally released from Mathura jail at midnight on September 1. He was arrested for the first time exactly three years ago on September 2 in the oxygen shortage tragedy at Gorakhpur’s BRD Medical College that led to the deaths of more than a hundred children. He had spent more than six months behind bars before being granted bail at the time.

Before the oxygen shortage scandal, Kafeel Khan was an ordinary man. Until a photo clicked while he was frantically attempting to save the lives of children on that day in 2017 changed his life. 

Also read: A Timeline: The Cases Against Dr Kafeel Khan and His Arrests

A resident of Gorakhpur’s Basantpur locality, 46-year-old Khan had spent 12 years of his life at Manipal Institute of Medical Sciences in Gangtok. He received his primary education from Amar Singh Children’s School in Gorakhpur and finished his high and intermediate education from Mahatma Gandhi Inter College, where his elder brother also studied.

Their father had hoped that both his sons would become doctors. After clearing his intermediate exams, Khan was selected in both Combined Pre-Medical Test (CMPT) and Manipal Institute of Medical Sciences with an all India ranking of 30. Fulfilling his family’s wishes, he went to Manipal.

At Manipal, after an MBBS and then an MD, Khan stayed on as an assistant professor in the paediatric department. He returned to Gorakhpur in 2013 and married Dr Shabista Khan.

Between 2013 to April 2016, Khan worked as a senior resident doctor at BRD Medical College. The contract ended in April after which he worked at the family hospital for some time. In August, he was appointed assistant professor in the paediatric department of the BRD Medical College.

File photo of Dr. Kafeel Khan. Credit: ANI/Twitter

File photo of Dr Kafeel Khan. Credit: ANI/Twitter

Khan’s father Shakeel Ahmed Khan, who worked as an engineer in the irrigation department, passed away on March 3, 2003.

Khan’s elder brother, Adeel, started his business after completing an MBA while his youngest brother is an orthopaedic surgeon. Another brother, Kashif Jamil, is also a businessman with degrees in MCA and MBA. In 2018, Kashif was attacked by assailants who shot him three times.

The day of tragedy

The BRD Medical College administration was already in the know that the supply of liquid oxygen would be disrupted, and ultimately cut off, by evening on August 10, 2017, as the oxygen supply company had written about it to the BRD officials at 11.20 am that day. By evening, the news broke in the media as several reporters received copies of the letter on WhatsApp. Based on the letter, Gorakhpur Newsline published the story in the evening on August 10.

Neither the medical college administration nor the district administration could arrange for liquid oxygen for the plant or adequate number of jumbo cylinders as an alternative, resulting in the horrific incident that was triggered at 7.30 pm on August 10.

The now infamous 100 number Ward of Dr. Kafeel Khan

The now infamous 100 number Ward of Dr. Kafeel Khan

On August 11, when I reached the 100-bed encephalitis ward of BRD Medical College at around 11.30 am, I saw a tense Dr Khan speaking on his mobile phone, walking back and forth. Meanwhile, jumbo cylinders were being offloaded from a pickup truck outside.

There was deafening silence inside the ward while a photographer of a local daily and the stringer of another newspaper waited outside. Soon, a woman arrived at the hospital carrying a child and crying.

Khan saw the child outside the ward, immediately took him in his arms and rushed inside the ward. The scene was promptly captured by the photographer.

The next day, as the dreadful news of the infants’ death spread, some newspapers carried a brief snippet of the saviour doctor along with the picture of Dr Khan and the child. Readers, aggrieved and outraged over the oxygen scandal, were captivated with the doctor’s gesture. The picture immediately went viral on social media.

Till August 12, Dr Khan was nowhere close to being an accused in the oxygen fiasco. On the evening of August 11, when the then District Magistrate, Rajiv Rautela, was addressing the media regarding the incident in the encephalitis ward, Dr Khan stood next to him, sharing essential information.

During the press briefing, the DM announced the formation of a committee to investigate the matter. This committee submitted its report within 24 hours. Even this report did not hold Khan guilty. He only found mention in the concluding lines of the report where it was stated that Dr Kafeel Khan (Nodal 100 Bed AES Ward) had informed Dr Satish Kumar in writing that the AC in the ward was not functioning, but it was not repaired on time.

On August 12, state health minister, Siddharth Nath Singh and medical education minister, Ashutosh Tandon, visited BRD Medical College. That is where Tandon made the insensitive “children die in the month of August” remark while talking to reporters. The statement made by the minister was widely condemned. Later, he announced the suspension of the college principal, Rajiv Mishra.

Kafeel Khan Gorakhpur Adityanath Postcard.news uttar pradesh

News on Kafeel Khan. Photo: File

A sudden change in the winds

On the evening of August 12, the situation did a U-turn with Dr Khan suddenly in the crosshairs. Having been in charge of the encephalitis ward, he was blamed for the paucity of oxygen. He was maligned on social media where people accused him of stealing oxygen and for a private practice. An old unsubstantiated allegation of rape, which an investigation had already found to be fabricated, was dug up and circulated. While posts on social media and random websites were busy regurgitating ‘mysterious revelations’ about him, the news channels did not hold back in painting him as the ‘villain’.

The media attention now completely swung from the BRD Medical College to the Medispring Hospital and Research Centre in Daudpur, a hospital run by Khan’s family.

Within 48 hours between August 11 to 12, the doctor who had been hailed as a hero had become the villain. On August 13, Chief Minister Adityanath visited the BRD Medical College and addressed a press conference in which a journalist asked an out of context question about private practice of doctors. The CM rose from his chair with a taut expression on his face and claimed that strict action will be taken against whoever is found involved in such an activity. The same evening, Dr Kafeel Khan was suspended.

Director General of Medical Education, Dr K.K. Gupta, who had arrived from Lucknow and had been staying in Gorakhpur since the fateful night of August 11, appeared in interviews on almost all news channels the same day. He claimed that Dr Kafeel Khan had confessed before the CM that he was practicing in private. He also said that when there were 52 cylinders already in stock, what difference would the three cylinders arranged by Khan have made? Gupta also mocked the media for portraying him as a ‘hero’.

‘Private practice’

It is pertinent to mention that the matter of private practice had evoked much hue and cry at the time of the oxygen scandal, but in the subsequent three years, no action was taken against any doctor except in a handful of cases. There are several examples of government doctors running private practices in and around the BRD medical college.

Dr Kafeel Khan at a medical camp. Photo: Facebook/drkafeelkhanofficial

Gupta travelled back to Lucknow and sent a detailed report to the principal secretary of medical education on August 22 and upon receiving a go-ahead from the government, filed an FIR at Hazratganj police station on August 23, 2017. The FIR named nine people as accused, including Khan.

The arrest

Khan was arrested on September 2. During this period, neither he nor any of his family members stepped forward to clarify the allegations levelled against him. According to Khan, he had been asked to remain silent about the incident.

“Everything will be all right in a few days,” he wrote in his letter from jail. “I remained silent because I was scared. I kept silent even as I was arrested and for another six months in jail. But when Manish Bhandari, director of liquid medical oxygen supply company, Pushpa Sales, got bail, I decided that I should let everyone know about the truth of the incident. After this, when my wife Dr Shabista Khan came to meet me on April 17, 2018, I told her that I wanted to write a letter. I wrote the letter in an hour and handed it to my wife.”

The letter brought Khan’s version of the story before the public for the first time since the oxygen incident. It was through this letter that people came to know that he was on leave on the day of the incident. He was informed on WhatsApp about piped oxygen running out by a colleague who was on duty in the ward. At 2.30 am, Khan left for BRD Medical College from his home in Basantpur. While attending to patients throughout the night, he was trying to arrange for oxygen cylinders.

On August 25, 2018, a single bench of the Allahabad High Court ordered his release on bail.

Dr Kafeel Khan at a medical camp. Photo: Facebook/drkafeelkhanofficial

Release

Khan said in an interview then that he has no regrets about going to the medical college that night or for having arranged for oxygen cylinders, despite being on leave, although he was portrayed in a negative light for it. “If such a calamity strikes again, then regardless of the consequences, I will be there again, even if it means facing action,” he said.

After his release from the prison, he was confident that he would be reinstated soon. He said that if the government withdrew his suspension, he would like to resume his medical and academic services at BRD Medical College as before. When asked what he would do if his suspension was not revoked, he replied that he would set up an institute equipped with facilities for the treatment of encephalitis patients.

But neither was he reinstated nor could he set up his own medical institute. He kept getting embroiled in controversies which came thick and fast. An attempt was also made on his brother’s life. In September 2018, he was arrested again, allegedly for creating ruckus at the Bahraich District Hospital. Next, he was booked for fraud and arrested along with his elder brother. After his release from prison, he started organising medical camps across the country.

Another inquiry and the CAA speech

After a departmental inquiry gave him a clean chit last year in two cases against him, there was a glimmer of hope that Khan would be reinstated, but the state government initiated another departmental inquiry against him with fresh charges. The chances of his reinstatement further dwindled.

During a protest against the contentious Citizenship Amendment Act and the proposed National Register of Citizens, Khan delivered a speech on December 12, 2019, at the Aligarh Muslim University. The next day, on December 13, 2019, a case under section 153A was registered against him over the speech. Sections 153B, 109A, 505 (2) were later added to the case.

Kafeel Khan speaking at Aligarh Muslim University on December 12, 2019. Photo: YouTube screengrab

No action was taken in the matter for one and a half months. But on January 29, he was suddenly arrested from Mumbai. Though he got bail from the CJM court in the case on February 10, he was not released even after three days of getting bail.

On February 13, the Inspector of the Civil Lines police station informed the CO that the speech delivered by Khan on December 12 was provocative as it led to mayhem in Aligarh which continued for several days. Khan may pose a threat to law and order, the report claimed, and therefore, he should be booked under the National Security Act. The CO handed this report to the SSP the same day and the SSP in turn recommended to the DM that very day that the NSA should be invoked. The DM accepted the report and ordered the invoking of charges under the NSA against Khan.

Also read: ‘Won’t Bend to Adityanath Govt, Will Continue to Speak Out Against Injustices’: Dr Kafeel Khan

The State Advisory Board also issued prohibitory orders against Khan under NSA. Three months later, the duration of his custody was extended for another three months. On August 13, NSA was once again extended for three months.

On September 1, the Allahabad High Court set aside his detention under the NSA. While recording its judgment, the high court said that the speech delivered by Khan was not about spreading hatred and violence. On the contrary, it encouraged national unity. The court said he should be released immediately.

Upon being finally released, Dr Kafeel once again expressed his desire to be reinstated at his job. He said he wanted to resume medical practice among flood victims. Yet the government does not seem to have changed its stance towards him. 

Translated from Hindi by Naushin Rehman.

Did Dr Kafeel Pay a Heavy Price Because His Name Is Khan?

From the time of his first arrest in September 2017, the Gorakhpur doctor has faced a series of cases in which he insists he is being implicated.

Lucknow: A stern verdict of the Allahabad high court finally gave a reprieve to Dr Kafeel Khan, who has been a target of the Uttar Pradesh government for almost three years.

Even as he walks out of prison, where he was languishing for over six months under a visibly trumped-up National Security Act (NSA) charge, many have been left wondering if Kafeel had to pay a heavy price simply because his name is “Khan”.

The sequence of events does suggest that his name could have been among the key factors that led to his repeated incarceration. After all, there could be no denying that what he did as an assistant professor of paediatrics at the BRD Medical College in Gorakhpur three years ago should have earned him laurels, rather than jail term after jail term.

His first arrest came on September 2, 2017, shortly after he went out of his way to ensure availability of oxygen cylinders for dying children in the Gorakhpur Medical College. Soon after he got bail from the high court after seven months in jail, he was hauled up for “creating ruckus” at the Bahraich district hospital. He, however, managed to get bail on the same day. But even before 24 hours could pass, he was in for yet another arrest – for having submitted “fake” documents to open an account in a nationalised bank way back in 2009.

Dr Kafeel Khan (C) following his release from Mathura jail on September 1, 2020. Photo: PTI

Arrest in relation to CAA protest

The next arrest came as a consequence of his allegedly “provocative” speech made during anti-Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA) protests at the Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) in December 2019. This time, the state government had detailed the Special Task Force (STF) to his case. Eventually, STF sleuths arrested him from Mumbai, where he had gone for personal work on January 29, 2020. Over the next few days, the administration invoked the NSA that was extended after its three-month period came to an end in May and then again in August.

Had it not been for the high court’s intervention, his family feels, Kafeel Khan would still have been languishing behind bars.

While setting aside the NSA order against Khan, the high court felt that the Aligarh administration had played up half-truths and used selective remarks made by Khan at the AMU anti-CAA rally to issue the order. It may be pertinent to mention that the Aligarh administration invoked the NSA soon after the local chief judicial magistrate granted Khan bail in the earlier case that was registered under various provisions of the IPC. Sure enough, there was reason to believe that the district administration was acting under directions from the political masters, who had apparently made up their mind to teach Khan a lesson.

The high court bench went to the extent of terming the government’s decision to invoke the NSA on Khan as “bad in law” and the extension of the NSA term as “illegal”. It also flatly refuted the government’s charge that Khan’s speech was aimed at spreading hatred, noting instead that it “gives a call for national integrity and unity among the citizens”.

Also Read: A Timeline: The Cases Against Dr Kafeel Khan and His Arrests

The Gorakhpur tragedy

As mentioned above, Khan’s first arrest was in September 2017, shortly after 67 children affected by encephalitis died in the Gorakhpur Medical College simply because of abrupt suspension of oxygen supply to the children’s ward. The supplier of the cylinders, Manish Bhandari, later pleaded that he had no option but to do so as he had exhausted his own funds while the state government was sitting pretty over his pending payments of Rs 68 lakh. Later, it was discovered that the file was held back by a senior IAS officer in the medical education department simply because the officer wanted a “cut” ‒ a routine practice rampant at all levels in UP.

Knowing that bureaucratic red-tape had little room for emotion, Kafeel got down to using his personal resources to muster up oxygen cylinders on the night of August 11, 2017. He managed to procure a few cylinders from some private hospitals in the neighbourhood and carted them over in his car to the paediatrics ward in the medical college, where 34 kids had already breathed their last in the absence of oxygen over the preceding 48 hours. And sure enough, his actions resulted in saving a few precious lives.

Perhaps, anybody else in that position would have been lauded and rewarded for being a good Samaritan. But far from any recognition, he received a rude shock when he was reprimanded for the act by none other than chief minister Yogi Adityanath himself.

On August 13, 2017, the chief minister flew down from the state capital to his spiritual home, Gorakhpur, to take a first-hand account of the tragedy at the medical college. And according to Kafeel, the moment he appeared before the chief minister, he said in a reprimanding tone, “Toh tum hi ho Dr Kafeel Khan jo oxygen cylinders idhar udhar se jama kar raha tha; tum sochte ho cylinders ki vyvastha kar ke tum bahut bare hero ban gaye; dekhta hoon ise. (So you are Dr Kafeel Khan, who arranged cylinders. So you think by arranging cylinders you became a hero? I will see it)”

Kafeel Khan. Photo: PTI/Files

‘Clean chit’

What followed was unabashed hounding of the doctor. Kafeel was suspended and arrested, along with eight others, including the medical college principal, Dr Rajiv Misra, his wife Dr Purnima Shukla, owner of Pushpa Sales (the company supplying the oxygen) Manish Bhandari, and anaesthesia department head Dr Satish Kumar. It took about seven months for each of them to get bail.

Also Read: ‘As Kids We Were Taught to Become Humans, Amit Shah Wants Us to Become Hindus, Muslims’

Meanwhile, departmental inquiries instituted against them also gave them clean-chits. One-by-one, eight of them (none happened to be a Khan) were reinstated. But Kafeel Khan was the only one to face a fresh inquiry by the state government. And this time, he was charged not only of dereliction of duty, but also indiscipline, negligence and even corruption and for “stealing oxygen cylinders”.

Even as Khan’s family feels relieved to have him back after months in the prison cell, they are still apprehensive that the doctor could be once again implicated in another case. “Anything can happen when the government is hell-bent on harassing him,” said Kafeel’s brother Adil Khan, who seems convinced that the doctor is paying the price either for his good deed in August 2017 or because his name is Khan.