The Calcutta High Court criticized the Mamata Banerjee government’s handling of the Sandeshkhali situation, emphasizing the inability to apprehend Sheikh Shahjahan. Prohibitory orders were questioned, and the court granted BJP leaders permission to visit amid allegations of illegal land transfer and assault.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
KOLKATA: On 20th February, the Calcutta High Court expressed strong disapproval of the West Bengal government’s handling of the situation in Sandeshkhali, particularly concerning the actions of local Trinamool Congress leader Sheikh Shahjahan. The court’s remarks came during a hearing on a petition filed by BJP leader Suvendu Adhikari, seeking permission to visit the conflict-ridden area of Sandeshkhali.
Chief Justice TS Sivagnanam highlighted the court’s concerns over allegations raised by the women of Sandeshkhali, including issues of illegal land transfer. The Chief Justice emphasized-
“We have seen the grievances, the women of the area have flagged issues, there has been some land grabbing. This person (Sheikh Shahjahan) cannot be on the run. The state cannot support it. In the suo motu matter, we will ask him to surrender here. He can’t be defying law,”
ALSO READ: Calcutta High Court Grants Suvendu Adhikari Permission to Visit Sandeshkhali
The court further criticized the protective stance of the state towards Shahjahan, stating-
“If one person can hold the entire population to ransom, the ruling dispensation should not support him. He is just a representative of the public. He is bound to do good to the public.”
This statement emphasizes the court’s view that Shahjahan’s actions, which allegedly include damage to the public and evading law enforcement, are unacceptable.
Chief Justice Sivagnanam pointed out the lack of action in apprehending Shahjahan–
“He is on the run after committing alleged crimes. We don’t know if he’s protected but unable to be secured. That could mean that state police are not able to secure him, or he is outside their jurisdiction,”
Highlighting concerns over the effectiveness of the state police in dealing with the situation.
The imposition of prohibitory orders in Sandeshkhali was also questioned by the court, which likened the situation to the undue stress experienced by people during the Covid pandemic due to confinement.
ALSO READ: Sandeshkhali Violence: Supreme Court Declines Comparison of Sandeshkhali Violence with Manipur
“You are just creating a tense situation. You are unnecessarily harassing locals. Like in Covid, people were going into depression because they are confined to their homes. Let people speak out. Just because people say something, the accused will not become a convict. If you shut them out, that will not work,”
-the court advised, advocating for open dialogue and less restrictive measures.
Despite the state government’s appeal against the lifting of prohibitory orders, citing potential law and order issues, the court noted the importance of allowing constitutional functionaries and locals to move freely, while expressing concern over the potential for political visits to incite further trouble.
The backdrop to this legal scrutiny involves allegations against Shahjahan and his associates of land grab, extortion, and even sexual assault, as brought forward by local residents and the BJP. The situation escalated when an Enforcement Directorate team was attacked while attempting to raid Shahjahan’s home, leading to his month-long evasion.
In response to these developments, Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee has accused the BJP of instigating violence in Sandeshkhali, suggesting that the conflict was engineered to target Shahjahan and create communal tension.
“The primary target was Sheikh and ED entered the area. Then they ousted everyone from there and fabricated an adivasis versus minorities fight,”
-Banerjee alleged, pointing to a history of unrest in the area linked to RSS activities.
The court said BJP leaders Suvendu Adhikari and Shankar Ghosh can go to Sandeshkhali, but they couldn’t because the situation there is still tense and unsettled.
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
