The Calcutta High Court on Thursday, issued interim directions to the “police authorities” to ensure the safe return of people who have been allegedly forced out of their homes, shops and properties regardless of their political affiliations, after hearing public interest litigations (PIL) regarding post-poll violence in West Bengal.
One of the PILs was moved by advocate Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharya, who questioned alleged demolition drives near New Market in Kolkata using bulldozers after the poll outcome was announced.
A separate petition was filed by Shirshanya Bandopadhyay, son of Trinamool Congress leader and senior advocate Kalyan Bandopadhyay. This plea alleged that TMC workers and offices of the party were targeted in several districts following the results.
Both matters had been clubbed for a joint hearing before the Chief Justice’s bench.
“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.,” the interim order issued by a bench comprising Chief Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Partha Sarathi Sen read.
The court observed that any citizen, irrespective of political allegiance, who had been unlawfully displaced because of post-election violence must be allowed to return safely to their property.
During the hearing, former West Bengal Chief Minister and Trinamool Congress Supremo Mamata Banerjee alleged that widespread attacks had taken place in several areas following the election results. Referring to photographs submitted before the court, she claimed that women, children and minority communities had been targeted and that numerous homes had been vandalised. She further alleged that police officers were refusing to register First Information Reports in some cases.
“West Bengal not a bulldozer state. Police are not lodging FIRs,” Banerjee told the court.
Senior advocate Kalyan Bandopadhyay, appearing for TMC, submitted that several party offices had been attacked and that party workers were assaulted and driven from their homes. He claimed that fear and intimidation prevailed in multiple districts and alleged that women had been assaulted in public places.
Bandopadhyay requested the court to appoint an independent committee to investigate the allegations, similar to the mechanism adopted after the 2021 Assembly elections. He also sought directions for the preservation of CCTV footage, registration of criminal cases against alleged perpetrators and protection against any demolition drives carried out without due legal process.
Opposing the pleas, Additional Solicitor General Ashoke Chakrabarti, representing the state, argued that the court should first examine the merits of the petitions before issuing any further orders.
Deputy Solicitor General Dhiraj Trivedi, appearing for the Election Commission of India (ECI), questioned the basis of the allegations and said several claims were supported only by unauthenticated photographs. He argued that the petitions lacked specific details regarding dates, complainants and alleged attackers, and maintained that vague accusations could not justify interim relief.
Trivedi told the court that the police would investigate any verified incident and assured the bench that FIRs would be registered wherever required. He also said the authorities had received copies of the petitions only recently and were in the process of preparing affidavits in response.
Bandopadhyay, however, countered that the existence of detailed allegations regarding vandalised homes and displaced workers indicated that law enforcement agencies should already have been aware of the incidents. He accused the administration of failing to respond effectively to the unrest and called for immediate judicial intervention.
Hearing all the arguments the court sought affidavits from the parties involved and said that the question of constituting a larger five-judge bench — similar to the arrangement made during the 2021 post-poll violence cases — would be considered at a later stage after the affidavits are filed.
The TMC was quick to claim the interim direction given by the court as a victory.
Kunal Ghosh, the MLA from Beleghata, termed the order as a victory.
“The court order is a victory for us. The way Mamata Banerjee herself argued in the court is commendable. She forced the court to see the atrocities committed by the BJP party workers against our party men after the polls got over,” Ghosh said.
In Bengal, BJP swept the elections winning 200 out of the 293 assembly constituencies in the state. There are 294 assembly constituencies in West Bengal and polls are scheduled in Falta on May 21.
The state president of the BJP Samik Bhattacharya however was quick to refute the claims made by TMC.
“We thought Mamata Banerjee would move the international court in the matter. Where was she when in 2021 56 BJP workers were killed and 27 women supporters of our party had claimed that they were gang raped by TMC party workers and goons?” Bhattacharya said.