A candidate for the Nandigram by-election was arrested on September 18, weeks before the vote, in cases going back to the 2007 anti-land-acquisition protests. He came to the Calcutta High Court seeking protection, his counsel calling the arrest a subversion of the democratic process; the State answered that the warrant was old and pending, that executing pending warrants during an election is routine, and that his presence was not required in the other cases. On the State’s own submission that five of the six cases were no longer alive and he was not even an accused in the sixth, the Court found no order necessary, but told the State to take no steps till October 9.
Kolkata: The Calcutta High Court has directed the State to take no steps against Milan Pradhan, a candidate for the Nandigram Assembly by-election, until October 9, while hearing his plea challenging his arrest on September 18 in connection with cases registered in 2007 relating to the anti-land-acquisition protests in Nandigram [Milan Pradhan v. State of West Bengal].
Senior Advocate Ayan Bhattacharya appeared for Pradhan, and Additional Advocate General Rajdeep Mazumdar for the State.
The arrest and the plea
Pradhan was arrested in connection with cases registered in 2007 involving allegations of rioting, murder and other offences linked to the anti-land-acquisition protests in Nandigram. Appearing for him, Mr. Bhattacharya described the arrest as a textbook example of subversion of the democratic process, submitting that although the cases dated to 2007, the warrant was being executed only on September 18, at a time when Pradhan had emerged as the common opposition candidate for the Nandigram by-election. His prayers, he said, were two-fold: protection in the cases in which his presence was not required, and disclosure of whether Pradhan was required in any other case. He pointed to the election timeline, the by-election on October 6, campaigning ending on October 4 and counting on October 9, as the reason protection was sought.
The Additional Advocate General submitted that Pradhan had been arrested pursuant to an arrest warrant in a 2007 case that had been pending since 2021, that when elections are being conducted in an area it is the duty of the police to execute pending warrants immediately, and that the warrant had been executed not against Pradhan alone but against others as well. He stated that Pradhan’s presence was not required in the remaining cases, and that his arrest was not required in any of the other pending cases in which he was named in connection with the Nandigram protests.
What the Court said, and ordered
The Court asked whether Pradhan would also seek anticipatory bail in the cases in which he had been shown as arrested, and was told that he would. Observing that the prayer was reasonable and that all were 2007 cases, the Court orally indicated that the State should not take any steps till October 9.
“Reasonable prayer. All are 2007 cases. Don’t take any steps till October 9.”
In its dictated order, the Court recorded that Pradhan had sought protection in connection with six criminal cases pending against him. The Additional Advocate General submitted, on instructions, that except Nandigram Police Station Case No. 156 of 2007 dated October 10, 2007, the other five criminal proceedings were no longer alive, and, further, that Pradhan was not an accused in Case No. 156 of 2007.
In view of those submissions, the Court held that no order was required to be passed in connection with the six criminal prosecutions referred to in Pradhan’s plea. It listed the matter for further consideration on October 12, with liberty to the petitioner to mention the case earlier if the situation so required.
Why it matters
The order sits at the intersection of criminal process and electoral politics, where the timing of an arrest becomes as significant as its legal basis. The petitioner’s grievance is not that the 2007 cases do not exist, but that a long-dormant warrant was executed at the precise moment he became the common opposition candidate, with the effect, whatever the intent, of removing him from the field during the campaign. The State’s answer is that executing pending warrants during an election is a routine police duty, applied to others too, and that Pradhan’s presence is not, in fact, required in the cases, positions the Court did not have to resolve because the State’s own submissions made an order unnecessary.
The practical outcome favours the candidate without the Court adjudicating the competing claims. On the State’s instructions that five of the six cases are no longer alive and that Pradhan is not an accused in the surviving one, the premise of any continuing custody in those matters falls away; and the Court’s oral direction that no steps be taken till October 9, the counting date, secures him against fresh coercive action through the campaign and the poll. Whether he is released turns on the anticipatory-bail applications his counsel indicated he would file in the cases in which he was shown as arrested, which are a separate step.
It bears emphasis that the underlying 2007 allegations, of rioting, murder and related offences arising from the Nandigram protests, are old and untested in these proceedings, and that the Court expressed no view on them; nor did it make any finding on the petitioner’s characterisation of the arrest as politically timed, or on the State’s account of it as routine warrant execution. What has happened is limited: no order was needed on the six cases given the State’s stand, the State is not to take steps till October 9, and the matter returns to court on October 12, with the candidate free to move earlier if circumstances change.
Case Title: Milan Pradhan v. State of West Bengal
Court: High Court at Calcutta
Appearing: Senior Advocate Ayan Bhattacharya for the petitioner; Additional Advocate General Rajdeep Mazumdar for the State
Status: No order required on the six criminal cases, given the State’s submission that five are no longer alive and the petitioner is not an accused in the sixth; State directed to take no steps till October 9. Listed for October 12, with liberty to mention earlier. Underlying allegations untested; no view expressed on merits.
