The Calcutta High Court has made it clear that democracy cannot flourish when political expression is selectively restricted. Directing the West Bengal Police to facilitate the Communist Party of India (Marxist) [CPI(M)] in setting up its traditional bookstall near a Durga Puja pandal in Bongaon, the Court emphasised that the State has a responsibility to create an atmosphere in which people with differing political beliefs can express their views without intimidation or obstruction.
On Thursday, October 15, Justice Saugata Bhattacharya directed the Superintendent of Police of Bongaon Police District and the Inspector-in-Charge of Bongaon police station to ensure public order and deploy adequate security so that the CPI(M) could erect its bookstall and sell books during the Durga Puja festivities. The permission extends to a location within a 100-metre radius of the party office, which is situated near the pandal. The police have also been directed to prevent others from disrupting the party’s activities and to submit a compliance report at the next hearing on November 23.
According to the report of LiveLaw, Justice Bhattacharya observed that the dissemination of different political thoughts and ideologies was welcome in a democracy, making it “fruitful, deep-rooted and mature”.
“It is expected of the present ruling dispensation to create an atmosphere where persons owing allegiance to different political ideologies will not hesitate to voice their views,” the judge said.
The observations came amid allegations that the CPI(M) had been prevented from setting up its traditional bookstall while a stall belonging to the Hindu Jagran Manch was allowed to occupy the area. The Left party told the Court that it had been setting up bookstalls near Durga Puja pandals for decades, with its petition referring to a tradition extending over approximately 50 to 60 years. It alleged that the Hindu Jagran Manch had obstructed its efforts to erect a temporary structure while operating its own stall in the vicinity without comparable interference.
Court questions unequal treatment
The matter came before the Court on Wednesday, October 14, when Justice Bhattacharya questioned the State’s position on the CPI(M)’s request for permission. As reported by LiveLaw, the judge asked why the party should be prevented from setting up its stall if other organisations were permitted to erect structures along the same road. “I don’t deny that permission is needed. But if you are allowing one group then allow the others as well,” the Court observed.
Questioning the apparent disparity, Justice Bhattacharya also asked, “How is this stall (Hindu Jagran Manch) allowed? It is a huge stall.”
The State government contested the maintainability of the petition, arguing that the dispute concerned the use of land belonging to the Public Works Department (PWD), rather than police inaction. It maintained that informing the police of the proposed bookstall did not amount to obtaining permission from the competent authority.
The State further argued that both groups had lodged FIRs, disputing the contention that the matter arose from police inaction. The Court, however, questioned whether the alleged obstruction and removal of the CPI(M)’s proposed structure warranted police intervention. It also emphasised the need for a uniform policy governing the erection of stalls on PWD land.
Justice Bhattacharya directed the investigating officer to report on whether other stalls had been established along the road without permission. The CPI(M) was also granted liberty to place additional facts and documents on record through a supplementary affidavit.
Appeal fails to halt order
The police subsequently challenged Justice Bhattacharya’s Wednesday order. According to PTI, a Division Bench presided over by Chief Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge disposed of the appeal filed by the officer-in-charge of Bongaon police station on Thursday. The State respondents’ request to stay the operation of the order was also refused by Justice Bhattacharya.
The subsequent directions place the responsibility on the police not merely to maintain order but to ensure that the CPI(M) can exercise its right to political expression without being driven out of a space it has traditionally used.
The dispute raises a question that extends beyond the placement of a seasonal bookstall: whether access to public spaces and the ability to communicate political ideas are being governed by consistent rules or by the relative influence of competing organisations.
Related:
‘Serious Grievances’: Bombay HC backs students’ concerns, MPSC protests continue in Pune