Kolkata, May 14 A Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court on Thursday evening ruled that no one in West Bengal should be evicted from his or her residence or business establishment just because of political affiliation.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Partha Sarathi Sen also directed West Bengal Police and Kolkata Police to take strong action to prevent incidents of post-poll violence in the state.
The Division Bench passed the order while hearing a public interest litigation filed at the Calcutta High Court over alleged incidents of post-poll violence in the state since the results of the recently concluded West Bengal Assembly polls were declared on May 4.
Incidentally, former West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee appeared as counsel to argue on behalf of the petitioner.
The matter will be heard again after five weeks and, on that day, the Division Bench will decide whether to refer it to a five-judge bench, as was done in a similar case involving post-poll violence after the 2021 West Bengal Assembly elections.
The Division Bench directed all parties in the case to submit affidavits before the next date of hearing and said it would decide whether to refer the matter to a five-judge bench, depending on the submissions made in the affidavits.
Earlier in the day, while arguing the matter as counsel, Mamata Banerjee sought the Calcutta High Court’s intervention in preventing post-poll violence in West Bengal and claimed that no one, especially people from the minority community, women, and children, had been spared.
“The police are not taking any action. If the court allows, I will mention these allegations in an additional affidavit. Save the people of the state. This is not a ‘bulldozer’ state. This is West Bengal. Please save the people of the state,” the former Chief Minister argued.
However, in his counterargument, state government counsel Dhiraj Trivedi described Mamata Banerjee’s allegations as baseless.
“No specific instances of post-poll violence have been cited in the petition. The petitioner is claiming that over 2,000 complaints of post-poll violence have surfaced. But no instance has been cited. The details of the complainants have also not been mentioned.
“The case relating to post-poll violence in 2021 was heard by a five-judge bench. Hence, it will not be desirable for the court to pass an interim order unless specific instances of post-poll violence are presented before the court,” Trivedi argued.
--IANS
src/dan
Disclaimer: This post has been auto-published from an agency feed without any modifications to the text and has not been reviewed by an editor