Calcutta High Court Intervenes in TMC Leaders’ Egg-Pelting Incidents
The Calcutta High Court has taken a significant step to curb mob violence and public humiliation, directing the Director General of Police (DGP) of West Bengal to formulate guidelines aimed at preventing acts of egg-pelting, violence, and mob lynching, particularly in cases involving the All India Trinamool Congress (TMC) members. In the case of Md Danish Farooqui Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors., the court has underscored the importance of protecting individuals accused in criminal cases from such public indignities.
Judicial Bench Speaks Out Against Public Violence
The Division Bench, led by Acting Chief Justice Tapabrata Chakraborty and Justice Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, has expressed its disapproval of these acts and has demanded an immediate action-taken report from the DGP. The court emphasized the state’s duty to shield accused individuals from inhumane and barbaric treatment, stating that the public must not assume the role of law enforcers. “The state has a responsibility to protect the accused persons from inhumanity and barbarity. The general public cannot take law in their own hands,” the court remarked.
Guidelines to Prevent Mob Violence
An order has been issued for the DGP to disseminate guidelines promptly to all police stations, emphasizing the prevention of egg-pelting and other forms of nuisance against accused individuals, including TMC leaders. The court has mandated a vigilant approach from state authorities to ensure swift action on any incidents reported. The court also requires a comprehensive report of compliance with these directives by July 20, when the case will be revisited.
Petition Highlights Public Humiliation Concerns
The interim order emerged from a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by Md. Danish Farooqui, who sought judicial intervention to halt the egg-pelting on TMC affiliates and to ensure punitive measures against offenders. The PIL further raised alarm over the public humiliation of accused persons, including unnecessary handcuffing and public parading.
State’s Response and Court’s Stand
Senior Advocate Kalyan Bandopadhyay, representing the petitioner, argued that the petition was necessitated by targeted violence and media trials against TMC-related individuals. The PIL alleged that, despite multiple complaints, the authorities had failed to take sufficient preventive measures. However, the Additional Advocate General, Rajdeep Mazumdar, representing the state, contended that FIRs had been filed in the cited cases, leading to subsequent arrests.
More Read
Judicial Emphasis on Human Dignity
The bench emphasized that complaints of such nature cannot be trivialized. It drew attention to the essential constitutional rights under Articles 14, 19, and 21, which protect human dignity and security. “Dignity and security that the law affords are not privileges conferred at the discretion of those in authority; they are rights inherent to every individual,” the court asserted.
The matter is scheduled to be heard again on July 20 at 2 PM.
