Supreme Court Holds Allottees Who Elected RERA Remedy Cannot Subsequently Seek Interim Relief Under Section 9 Arbitration Act Lodging FIR Does Not Amount To Instigation: Supreme Court Quashes Section 306 IPC Case Against In-Laws Over Husband's Suicide Vigilant Citizen Deserves Acknowledgment: Supreme Court Sets Strict Timelines For 20-Year-Old Subway Project, Lauds Litigant's Relentless Legal Battle Lawyer Cannot Disclose Privileged Information On TV Even If Client Becomes Adversary: Supreme Court Upholds Suspension Of Advocate Rizwan Siddique, Slaps ₹5 Lakh Cost On Both Parties Supreme Court Modifies 3-Year Bar Practice Rule; Orders 1-Year Practice Coupled With 2-Year Academy Training & Clerkship Model Made A Scapegoat Under Pressure Of Public Outcry: Delhi High Court Acquits Man Sentenced To Life In POCSO Case Doctrine Of Lis Pendens Applies To Court Auctions; Purchaser Bound By Outcome Of Pending Specific Performance Suit: Allahabad High Court Andhra Pradesh High Court Rules Section 65B Evidence Act Objection Cannot Be Raised For First Time In Appeal Two-Month Time Limit To File Evidence Under Rule 45 Of Trade Marks Rules 2017 Is Mandatory; Non-Compliance Results In Deemed Abandonment: Madras High Court SEBI Act | Special Law Overrides General Law': Bombay High Court Quashes Police FIR Against Ex-Axis Mutual Fund Chief Dealer In Front-Running Case 'Truth Cannot Be Sacrificed At The Altar Of Rigid Timelines': Calcutta High Court Upholds Section 311 CrPC Powers At Any Stage For Just Decision 'A Dispute Does Not Cease To Be Criminal Merely Because It Involves Commercial Transaction': Chhattisgarh High Court Refuses To Quash Cheating FIR In ₹4.39 Cr Land Deal Holding In Designated Centres Only Way If Foreigner Cannot Be Expelled: Gauhati High Court Denies Bail To Declared Foreigner Who Illegally Re-Entered India Madras High Court Issues Guidelines Against Police Harassment Under Guise Of Enquiry, Mandates Written Summons Under Section 179 BNSS Grave Ramifications On Rights': Punjab & Haryana High Court Mandates Strict Compliance Of Section 82 CrPC Before Declaring Accused As Proclaimed Person 'Interacting With Father Benefits Child's Well-Being': Kerala High Court Grants Virtual Access To Father After Mother Takes Child Abroad Violating Restraint Order Agreement In Family Member’s Name Cannot Shield Occupants Under Section 53-A TP Act': Uttarakhand High Court Upholds Eviction Of Licensees Not Filling A Lacuna: Subsequent Forensic Report From Criminal Case Can Be Produced As Additional Evidence In Civil Suit: Punjab & Haryana High Court Mere Nomination In FIR Not Enough For Vicarious Liability: Allahabad High Court Acquits Murder Accused Under Section 149 IPC Demanding Separations From Depending In-Laws Constitute Mental Cruelty: Calcutta High Court Upholds Divorce Human Memory Not Photographic: Allahabad High Court Upholds Murder Conviction, Reiterates 'Falsus In Uno' Maxim Has No Application In India Litigant Claiming To Be Sub-Tenant Before Revenue Authorities Cannot Set Up Plea Of Adverse Possession In Civil Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court Civil Death": Orissa High Court Rules Blacklisting Of Contractor Without Specific Show-Cause Notice Violates Natural Justice Delay Irrespective Of Number Of Years Ought To Be Condoned In Land Acquisition Matters': Punjab & Haryana High Court Condones 3953 Days Delay 'Notary Cannot Act As Marriage Officer': Madhya Pradesh High Court Accepts Notary's Apology With ₹2 Lakh Welfare Cost, Directs Display Board Against Notarizing Marriages

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