MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

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