"Party Autonomy is the Backbone of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Upholds Sole Arbitrator Appointment Despite Party’s Attempts to Frustrate Arbitration Proceedings    |     Reasonable Doubt Arising from Sole Testimony in Absence of Corroboration, Power Cut Compounded Identification Difficulties: Supreme Court Acquits Appellants in Murder Case    |     ED Can Investigate Without FIRs: PH High Court Affirms PMLA’s Broad Powers    |     Accident Claim | Contributory Negligence Cannot Be Vicariously Attributed to Passengers: Supreme Court    |     Default Bail | Indefeasible Right to Bail Prevails: Allahabad High Court Faults Special Judge for Delayed Extension of Investigation    |     “Habitual Offenders Cannot Satisfy Bail Conditions Under NDPS Act”: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail to Accused with Extensive Criminal Record    |     Delhi High Court Denies Substitution for Son Due to 'Gross Unexplained Delay' of Over Six Years in Trademark Suit    |     Section 4B of the Tenancy Act Cannot Override Land Exemptions for Public Development: Bombay High Court    |     Suspicion, However High, Is Not a Substitute for Proof: Calcutta High Court Orders Reinstatement of Coast Guard Officer Dismissed on Suspicion of Forgery    |     Age Not Conclusively Proven, Prosecutrix Found to be a Consenting Party: Chhattisgarh High Court Acquits Accused in POCSO Case    |     'Company's Absence in Prosecution Renders Case Void': Himachal High Court Quashes Complaint Against Pharma Directors    |     Preventive Detention Cannot Sacrifice Personal Liberty on Mere Allegations: J&K High Court Quashes Preventive Detention of Local Journalist    |     J.J. Act | Accused's Age at Offense Critical - Juvenility Must Be Addressed: Kerala High Court Directs Special Court to Reframe Charges in POCSO Case    |     Foreign Laws Must Be Proved Like Facts: Delhi HC Grants Bail in Cryptocurrency Money Laundering Case    |    

Judicial non-action may boomerang: Calcutta High Court Directs Continued Deployment of Central Forces Amid Post-Poll Violence Concerns

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant interim order addressing the spate of violence following the 2024 West Bengal state elections, the Calcutta High Court has mandated the continued deployment of Central Forces until June 21, 2024. The ruling, delivered by Justices Harish Tandon and Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, underscores the judiciary’s role in safeguarding democratic processes and citizen security amidst allegations of post-election violence and inaction by the State Police.

The High Court acknowledged the gravity of the petitioners’ claims regarding widespread violence and the perceived inaction of the State Police. It emphasized the need for continued Central Forces’ presence to maintain law and order, citing previous directives that facilitated electronic lodging of complaints due to fear of retaliation. “Judicial non-action may boomerang,” the court noted, referencing the necessity for immediate and proactive measures in such volatile situations.

Addressing the contentious issue of the petitioners’ political affiliations, the Court upheld their right to file Public Interest Litigations (PILs), provided the petitions serve public interest and not political vendettas. The judgment cited several Supreme Court precedents, including Sachidanand Pandey vs. State of West Bengal and Tehseen Poonawalla vs. Union of India, which support the involvement of politically affiliated individuals in PILs if the intent is genuinely public-oriented.

The necessity of retaining Central Forces post-elections was deemed crucial by the Court to ensure the protection and security of citizens. The Court directed the State to submit a comprehensive report by June 14, 2024, detailing actions taken on the lodged complaints of violence. “The Central Forces were deployed to ensure a fair and transparent election process, and their continued presence is essential to prevent further violence,” the bench remarked.

The judgment carefully navigated the constitutional provisions under the Seventh Schedule, highlighting the State’s primary duty to maintain law and order while recognizing the Central Government’s role under Entry 2A of List I. The Court maintained that this interim order was necessary to address the exigencies presented by the post-poll violence allegations, while leaving the broader constitutional question open for future deliberation.

Justice Harish Tandon, referencing an illustrious jurist, remarked, “Democracy digs its grave where passions, tensions, and violence upset the results of peaceful polls... The court and the law are functionally the bodyguards of the People against bumptious power.”

The Calcutta High Court’s interim order to retain Central Forces until June 21, 2024, highlights the judiciary’s proactive stance in addressing post-election violence and ensuring citizen safety. By affirming the lower courts’ findings and emphasizing the need for credible action on lodged complaints, this judgment reinforces the legal framework for maintaining law and order in democratic processes. The matter is set for further hearing on June 18, 2024, where the State’s report on its actions will be reviewed.

 

 Date of Decision: 11th June 2024

Suvendu Adhikari and another vs. State of West Bengal and others

Similar News