The has issued a significant directive to law enforcement authorities, commanding the of and the Inspector-in-Charge of to ensure the peaceful operation of a book stall by the during the Durga Puja festival. The court’s order addresses a petition filed by the party seeking police protection after their members were allegedly forcibly obstructed from setting up a temporary bamboo structure at their traditional stall location near the Bongaon Jessore Road. By intervening, the court has emphasized the state’s obligation to maintain and preserve an environment where diverse political activities can proceed without intimidation.
The dispute centered on the petitioners' request for a , compelling local police to provide the necessary security to allow the construction and operation of their stall from , to . The petition highlighted a specific incident on , during which party workers were allegedly prevented from erecting their structure by members of another organization. The petitioners asserted that despite notifying the relevant police authorities and the , they were unable to secure their site, while a rival group was permitted to occupy the area and complete their own construction.
A critical point of contention during the hearing was the of the . The state respondents, represented by the Advocate General, argued that the matter should be categorized as a under the Rules of the , as the stall was proposed on land belonging to the . The state contended that such an application required the petitioner to approach the specific bench tasked with handling land-related disputes, as any erection of structures on public property necessitates prior authorization from the relevant department.
In contrast, the petitioners argued that their primary grievance was not a land dispute but rather the failure of the police to discharge their to maintain peace and . They asserted that the classification should be under , which covers instances of police inaction. After reviewing the prayers within the , the court rejected the state's classification attempt. Justice Saugata Bhattacharyya observed that the within Group-I could not be interpreted as an umbrella clause for any matter vaguely related to property when the core issue was the inability of citizens to express their views due to obstruction by third parties.
The court's decision hinged on the principle that the police authority's responsibility to protect citizens from intimidation during festive seasons transcends technical land-use arguments. Justice Saugata Bhattacharyya noted that the court had to decide if the police had acted to prevent the alleged interference. Finding that the petitioners had previously occupied the site and that others were seemingly permitted to operate in the vicinity, the court determined that the police had failed to act impartially to uphold law and order.
In a strong affirmation of democratic values, the court highlighted the importance of in public spaces. Justice Saugata Bhattacharyya observed, “Dissemination of different political thoughts and ideologies is welcome in democracy since it makes the democracy fruitful, deep-rooted and matured.” The court further stressed, “It is expected of present ruling dispensation to create an atmosphere where persons owing allegiance to different political ideologies will not hesitate to express their views.”
These observations underscore the judiciary's expectation that the ruling administration must facilitate, rather than hinder, the visibility of opposition ideologies, particularly during significant cultural events like Durga Puja. By framing the dispute in this light, the court elevated the issue from a localized logistical concern to a matter of protecting fundamental democratic engagement.
The operative portion of the order requires the Bongaon police authorities to maintain peace within a 100-meter radius of the proposed site, ensuring that members of the are not disturbed by any group or individual. The is specifically tasked with filing a report outlining the steps taken to implement this directive. The court also explicitly refused the state’s request for a stay on the operation of the order, allowing the petitioners to proceed with their plans immediately.
The court found it troubling that the state was unable to produce a report on whether other stalls in the same area had obtained the requisite permissions from the , further suggesting an uneven application of the law. As the court articulated, “When others are selling different items by erecting stalls during puja days at the locale then petitioner no.1 organization ought not to be prevented from selling books by erecting stalls.” This reflects the court's concern regarding the potential for discriminatory state action against political organizations.
The matter is currently scheduled to be listed again under the heading “To Be Mentioned” on , for further consideration. For now, the legal outcome secures the immediate ability of the party to operate their stall for the duration of the festivities. The ruling serves as a reminder that administrative rules concerning land usage cannot be invoked to suppress the exercise of political rights or to excuse a lack of police intervention when citizens are being subjected to threats or intimidation. By prioritizing the preservation of and the democratic right to dissent, the has set a clear precedent for how similar conflicts involving political expression in public spaces should be handled by state authorities during times of social celebration. The implementation of this order will now rest on the compliance of the local police and the vigilance of the authorities in ensuring that the environment remains open to all viewpoints, regardless of political affiliation.
police protection - public order
