Rahul Kothari Vs.

Serious Fraud Investigation Office (Allahabad HC)

A Single Judge bench of the Allahabad High Court comprising Justice Om Prakash Singh,
granted interim Bail to Mr. Rahul Kothari (Applicant), the owner of Rotomac Pvt. Ltd. in
against a case registered by the SFIO in February, 2018. This was in the background of the
SLP filed by him before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, wherein an interim bail was
granted earlier to the on 20.01.2022, which was extended for further two weeks. Post the
expiry of which, the Applicant had surrendered before the Court and was in Jail. The
Applicant’s plea was that he being the sole son was to treat his ill mother post the demise of
the father. The contention of the SFIO was that the since the applicant has surrendered
before the Court concerned, he is in custody, therefore, there is no occasion to grant him
interim bail.

The Allahabad High Court granted an interim bail to the applicant till the next date of
hearing.

Ashlesh Biradar Vs. State of West Bengal (Calcutta HC)

A division bench comprising Justices Prakash Shrivastava and Rajarshi Bharadwaj of the
Calcutta High Court stayed the West Bengal’s Government to suspend Internet Services
seven districts of the state from 11:00 AM to 3:15 PM. The defence taken by the state was
that the state was very much empowered under Section 5 of the Telegraph Act, 1885; which
empowers the state to suspend internet services under ‘ “Occurrence of any public
emergency” or “in the interest of public safety” ’ as well as the Internet Suspension Rules,
2017; wherein under Rule 2(2) which empowers the state to suspend internet services
“holding that such an order must be a reasoned order and reasoning of the authorities and
officers should indicate unavoidable circumstances necessitating passing of such an order”.

Against this, the counsel for the petitioners contended that this order in no way necissated
Public Interest or Unavoidable circumstances and as a consequence of the said orders, online
payments, online classes have been disrupted profoundly and hence the suspension order
clearly falls short of the Doctrine of Proportionality as envisaged in the Aniruddha Basin Vs.
UoI judgement.

The affidavit in opposition by the Additional Chief Secretary dated 10th of March, 2022
reveals that a communication was sent by the President, West Bengal Board to discontinue
internet services during Madhyamik Pariksha on the ground that in the previous examinations
in 2019 and 2020 some WhatsApp groups or Tiktok App had adopted unfair means and 19
examinees were caught with mobile phones in the hall in Bagdogra.

The Court felt that such an order suspending internet services does not fall under the
Proportionality Doctrine as enunciated in the Anuradha Bhasin and the People’s Union For
Civil Liberties (PUCL) cases and felt that various other means available to prevent use of
unfair means in the Madhyamik Examination. The relevant excerpt is as :

“the reason now put forward for issuing the impugned

order are not contained in the impugned order and that

the State has various other means available to prevent

use of unfair means in the Madhyamik Examination and

that the prima-facie test of proportionality is not satisfied,

we are of the view that a case of grant of interim relief is

made out.”