Limitation For Executing Partition Decree Not Suspended Till Engrossment; Right To Seek Engrossment Subsists During 12-Year Execution Period: Allahabad HC Unilateral Revocation Of Registered Gift Deed Through Sub-Registrar Is Void, Donor Must Approach Civil Court: Andhra Pradesh High Court Mediation Cannot Be Forced Upon Unwilling Party In Civil Suits; Consent Of Both Sides Essential: Bombay High Court Unmarried Daughter Not Entitled To Freedom Fighter Pension If Gainfully Employed At Time Of Father's Death: Calcutta High Court Section 125 CrPC | Maintenance Cannot Be Denied For Lack Of Formal Divorce From First Marriage: Delhi High Court ONGC Cannot Demand Security From Award Holder After Giving ‘No Objection’ To Withdrawal Of Deposited Amount: Andhra Pradesh High Court Sedative Drugs Like Tramadol Impact Mental Fitness Of Declarant; Bombay High Court Acquits Man Relying On Doubtful Dying Declarations Postal Tracking Report Showing 'Refusal' Not Conclusive Proof Of Service If Denied On Oath: Delhi High Court Encroachments Near Military Installations Pose National Security Threat; Remove Illegal Constructions Within Three Months: Rajasthan High Court Punjab & Haryana High Court Directs State To Decide On Legality Of Charging Fees For Downloading FIRs From 'SAANJH' Portal Wife’s Educational Qualifications No Bar To Seeking Maintenance If Actual Employment Is Not Proven: Orissa High Court Mere Telephonic Contact Without Substance Of Conversation Cannot Establish Criminal Conspiracy: Madhya Pradesh High Court Serious Allegations Like HIV/AIDS Imputations Require Corroboration, Cannot Rest Solely On Unsubstantiated Testimony: Karnataka High Court Family Court Cannot Refuse Mutual Consent Divorce Merely Because Parties Are Living Separately 'Without Valid Reason': Kerala High Court Collective Attempts By Advocates To Overbear Presiding Officer Not Protected Professional Conduct: Madras High Court Dismisses Quash Petitions No Legal Evidence Required To Forward A Person To Trial? Rajasthan HC Slams Police For Implicating Accused In NDPS Case Solely On Co-Accused's Statement Accused Must Be Physically Present In Court To Furnish Bonds Under Section 91 BNSS: Punjab & Haryana High Court

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

Latest Legal News