Post Poll Violence: Calcutta High Court Asks Police To Maintain Law & Order, Give Safe Return To People Irrespective Of Party Affiliation
The petition filed before the Calcutta High Court highlighted that a sizable number of properties and persons were subjected to post-poll violence.
While dealing with a petition raising concern over the atrocities suffered by the people in the State due to post-poll violence, the Calcutta High Court has asked the police authorities to strictly maintain law and order and also ensure that if any citizen, irrespective of his/her party affiliation, is illegally thrown out of his shop/house/property etc., he/she is given a safe return.
The petition filed before the High Court highlighted that a sizable number of properties and persons were subjected to post-poll violence because of their political, reserved community, gender or religious background. It was brought to the Court’s notice that a few persons even lost their lives.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Partha Sarathi Sen ordered, “In view of the stand taken by Mr. Dhiraj Kumar Trivedi, in the interest of justice it is observed that it shall be lawful for the police authorities to strictly maintain law and order at the ground level.The police shall also ensure that if any citizen irrespective of his/her party affiliation is illegally thrown out of his shop/house/property etc. due to post poll violence, he/she shall be given a safe return to his shop/house/property etc.”
Senior Advocate Kalyan Bandopadhyay represented the Petitioner, while Additional Solicitor General Asok Kumar Chakraborti represented the Union of India.
Arguments
It was the case of the petitioners that the persons thrown out of their houses/properties needed to be protected so that they could come back to their respective properties. It was further submitted that the police should preserve CCTV footage, video recording, etc. It was also brought to the Court’s notice that another post-poll public interest litigation relating to previous post-poll violence had already been sent for adjudication to a five-Judge Bench, and the present matter may also be sent to the said Bench for analogous hearing.
The respondents disputed the maintainability of the petition, considering that it was filed by an advocate.
Decision
The Bench permitted the Counsel for the State to file an Affidavit-in-Opposition within three weeks by supplying an advance copy to the petitioner to enable him to file an exception (if any).
Leaving the question of maintainability of PIL open, the Bench clarified, “Whether, this matter needs to be heard by the said Five Judges’ Bench will be considered after exchange of pleadings by the parties.”
Cause Title: Sirsanya Bandopadhyay Vs. Union of India & Ors. (Case No.: WPA (P) 231 of 2026)
Appearance
Petitioner: Senior Advocate Kalyan Bandopadhyay, Advocates Mamata Bandopadhyay, Chandrima Bhattacharya, Pramiti Bandopadhyay, Arka Kumar Nag, Tirthankar Dey, Deboleena Ghosh, Rahul Kumar Singh, Ratikanta Pal, Shrobona Sengupta, Danish Farooqui, Sneha Sarkar, Kaushik Bandyapadhyay, Anit Das, Arijit Ganguly, Ashish Dutta, Samirul Sardar
ECI: Advocate Anamika Pandey
State: Senior Advocates Dhiraj Kumar Trivedi, Kallol Mondal, Advocates Amajit De, BrajeshJha, AtanuBasu, Srijit Chakraborty, Sunit Mishra, Amitava Roy, Saibal Acharya, Swapan Kumar Pal, Debapriya Chatterjee, D. Ghosh
UOI: Additional Solicitor General Asok Kumar Chakraborti, Advocates Rashmi Bothra, Arijit Majumdar, Shreyashi Sarkar