Calcutta HC Judge Declares ‘No More’ to Rally Pleas Amid Crushing Backlog

KOLKATA – In a moment of stark judicial candor that reverberated through legal circles, a Calcutta High Court judge expressed profound frustration with the incessant stream of petitions seeking permission for political rallies, emphatically declaring, “No more, enough, no more, I will not allow it....” The outburst from Justice Tirthankar Ghosh on Monday not only halted another proposed political gathering but also cast a harsh spotlight on the tension between the constitutional right to protest and the overwhelming practical burdens straining the city's infrastructure and the court's own docket.

The incident provides a critical lens through which to view the mounting challenges facing the Indian judiciary, particularly the Calcutta High Court, which is currently grappling with an unprecedented and historic case backlog. The court's struggle with its own administrative crisis adds a powerful, if unspoken, context to the judge's palpable exasperation.

A Plea Too Far: The Tipping Point in Court

The immediate trigger was a plea moved by Advocate Mayukh Mukherjee on behalf of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). He sought urgent permission for a meeting in Taratala on Monday evening, pointing out that a rival Trinamool Congress councillor had held a gathering at the same location just a week prior. This routine request, however, met an uncommonly firm refusal.

“For the protest rally, go to the division bench. File a PIL,” Justice Ghosh directed, immediately recasting the issue from a simple administrative permission to a matter of public interest. “Right to protest, if it is a PIL, you are doing it for the public at large. I am not going to interfere, the stake is higher than the police refusing.”

His statement underscores a significant legal and philosophical crossroads. While the right to peaceful assembly is a cornerstone of Indian democracy, its frequent exercise by political parties on busy city streets raises complex questions of public inconvenience, safety, and the allocation of state resources. The recent Nabanna march, led by the BJP over the RG Kar rape-murder case, devolved into clashes between police and protesters, resulting in injuries and further fueling the court's apprehension. The alleged attack on the victim's parents during that march, now the subject of a suo motu police probe, highlights the volatile nature of such events.

Justice Ghosh’s initial refusal to hear the matter, citing a self-imposed policy to avoid such cases on his single bench, led to a procedural conundrum. Senior Advocate Billwadel Bhattacharya argued that the matter fell squarely within the judge's "determination" (jurisdiction) and was not a PIL. It took an informal clarification from a division bench, which confirmed the single-bench's jurisdiction without issuing a formal order, to bring the petition back before Justice Ghosh. Ultimately, he permitted the petition to be filed but deferred the hearing to August 13, effectively denying the urgency of the request.

The Colossal Burden: A Court Drowning in History

Justice Ghosh's cri de cœur cannot be analyzed in a vacuum. It resonates deeply with the staggering data recently released by the Union Law Ministry, which paints a grim picture of the Calcutta High Court's operational capacity. The report reveals a judicial crisis of historic proportions:

94% of Decades-Old Cases: The Calcutta High Court is burdened with 2,185 cases that have been pending for over 50 years. This accounts for an astonishing 94% of all such legacy cases (2,329) across all 25 high courts in India.

The Oldest Case: The oldest pending case in any Indian high court, unresolved for 74 years since 1951, is on the docket of the Calcutta High Court.

A Growing Problem: The court added 140 new cases to its list of 50-year-plus pending matters in the last year alone, indicating the backlog is worsening, not improving.

This data provides the crucial context for the court’s reluctance to dedicate its limited time to adjudicating recurring political disputes. When a single institution is responsible for nearly all of the nation's most ancient legal disputes, every judicial hour becomes an invaluable and non-renewable resource. The diversion of this resource to manage street-level political showdowns appears, from this perspective, to be an untenable proposition.

Law Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal attributed such long pendencies to a confluence of factors, including case complexity, stakeholder cooperation, and judicial vacancies. As of August 1, India's high courts had 344 vacancies against a sanctioned strength of 1,122 judges. While government initiatives like the National Mission for Justice Delivery and Legal Reforms and court-established arrears committees exist, their impact on the monumental backlog in Kolkata seems minimal.

The PIL Paradox: A Tool for Justice or Publicity?

Justice Ghosh’s suggestion to file the plea as a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) is itself a noteworthy legal strategy. It implies that the issue transcends a single party's right to assemble and affects the "public at large." Simultaneously, it reflects a growing judicial skepticism towards the motives behind certain petitions.

Coincidentally, on the same day, the Supreme Court delivered a sharp rebuke to this very practice. A bench led by Chief Justice B R Gavai dismissed a PIL seeking to curb illegal activities by political parties, labeling it a "publicity interest litigation." The CJI admonished the petitioner's counsel for bypassing the high court and approaching the apex court directly under Article 32. “Though PILs are necessary to protect citizens' rights, this petition concerns policy matters... and does not justify a direct approach to the Supreme Court,” the bench stated.

This parallel development at the Supreme Court reinforces the judicial sentiment that while the PIL is a vital instrument for social justice, its misuse for political or personal mileage is eroding its efficacy and wasting precious judicial time. Justice Ghosh’s initial push towards a PIL may have been an attempt to compel the petitioners to frame their grievance in terms of broader public good, thereby elevating the discourse beyond partisan interests.

Implications for the Legal Profession and Future Litigation

The events at the Calcutta High Court offer several key takeaways for legal practitioners and the justice system:

1. Judicial Temperament as a Factor: The explicit expression of judicial frustration is a clear signal to the bar. Litigators must now consider the very real possibility that courts, particularly those under extreme duress, may adopt a less tolerant stance towards petitions perceived as frivolous or contributing to public disruption.
2. The Blurring Line Between Rights and Public Order: The court’s reaction signals that the once-sacrosanct right to protest is being increasingly weighed against the tangible costs to public order and administrative resources. Counsel arguing for such rights may need to present more compelling cases that address and mitigate these concerns proactively.
3. Strategic Use of PILs: Both the Calcutta HC and SC's actions suggest a judiciary attempting to reclaim the original purpose of the PIL. Practitioners may find courts more rigorously scrutinizing the "public interest" component of such litigations.
4. Docket Realities Informing Decisions: The backlog is no longer just a statistic; it is actively influencing judicial decision-making at the ground level. Legal arguments that ignore the practical realities of a court's docket may fall on deaf ears.

In conclusion, Justice Ghosh’s simple, powerful statement—"enough, no more"—is more than an expression of one judge's fatigue. It is a symptom of a systemic malaise. It represents a judiciary caught between upholding fundamental rights and managing a collapsing administrative framework. For Kolkata, and indeed for the Indian legal system, it serves as a stark warning that when the scales of justice are already overburdened with the weight of history, they can ill afford the added pressure of perpetual political conflict.