Today, On 14th May, The Calcutta High Court directed police to ensure safe return of all citizens illegally evicted during West Bengal’s post-poll violence, stating that authorities must strictly maintain law and order and facilitate restoration of homes, shops, and properties without discrimination.
The Calcutta High Court directed police authorities to ensure the safe return of any citizen who was illegally evicted from their home, shop, or property in the wake of post-poll violence in West Bengal.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Partha Sarathi Sen said that police must strictly maintain law and order at the local level.
Former West Bengal chief minister and Trinamool Congress (TMC) leader Mamata Banerjee appeared before the Calcutta High Court on Thursday in connection with a public interest litigation (PIL) alleging post-election violence in the state.
The petition sought directions to the court to ensure protection for residents and accused the police of failing to take action against attacks and intimidation.
Presenting her submissions before Chief Justice Sujoy Pal, Banerjee urged immediate safeguards, saying,
“My humble submission is to please protect the people of Bengal. This is not a bulldozer state,”
The Court ordered,
“In the interest of justice, it is observed that it shall be lawful for the police authorities to strictly maintain law and order at the ground level. The police shall also ensure that if any citizen irrespective of his/her party affiliation is illegally thrown out of his shop/house/property etc. due to post poll violence, he/she shall be given a safe return to his shop/house/property etc,”
The petitioner, Sirsanya Bandopadhyay, was represented by senior advocate Kalyan Bandopadhyay along with a large legal team.
They told the Court that,
“The case relates to post poll violence and that a sizable number of properties and persons were subjected to post poll violence because of their political, reserved community, gender or religious background. Few persons even lost their lives.”
The petitioner’s lawyers argued that many people were thrown out of their homes and properties after the elections, and these citizens need immediate protection so that they can return safely.
They asked the Court to ensure that “the police must preserve CCTV footage, video recording etc.”
They also informed the Court that an earlier PIL on similar allegations, WPA (P) 250 of 2023, has already been sent to a five-judge Bench. Therefore, they requested that this current matter should also be transferred for an analogous hearing.
The petitioner stated that they would soon file a Supplementary Affidavit to show the extent of the alleged illegal demolition and bulldozer action.
They relied on earlier judgments in WPA (P) 142 of 2021 (Susmita Saha Dutta vs. The Union of India & Ors.), 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3210 (In Re: Manoj Tibrewal Akash) and 2025 SCC OnLine SC 766 (Zulfiquar Haider & Anr. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.).
During the hearing, Additional Solicitor General Asok Kumar Chakraborti questioned the maintainability of the PIL. He argued that the petition was filed by an advocate and said that the necessary averments for entertaining a PIL are missing. There are certain restrictions to file the PIL by a lawyer.
He also said that if the petitioner wants to rely on material outside the original petition, “proper course is to file amendment application and not use a Supplementary Affidavit. No FIR is attached by the petitioner.”
Senior advocate Dhiraj Kumar Trivedi, appearing for the State, supported this objection and submitted that the PIL lacked the required foundation.
He argued that “the necessary averments to entertain a PIL are missing and also pointed out that no complain preferred by the petitioner for present grievance has been annexed with the petition.”
He described the petitioner’s averments as ambiguous and bald.
However, he added that the “State, as a welfare State, will take strict action against persons who have violated law in case any such violation had taken place.”
After hearing all parties, the Court permitted Mr. Trivedi to file an Affidavit-in-Opposition within three weeks and allowed the petitioner two weeks to file any exception. The Court made it clear that “the question of maintainability of PIL will remain open.”
The other respondents were also given the same time to file their replies.
In a key observation for protecting citizens on the ground, the Bench said that,
“It shall be lawful for the police authorities to strictly maintain law and order at the ground level. The police shall also ensure that if any citizen irrespective of his/her party affiliation is illegally thrown out of his shop/house/property etc. due to post poll violence, he/she shall be given a safe return to his shop/house/property etc.”
The Court also stated that it would decide later whether this matter needs to be heard by the said Five Judges’ Bench once all pleadings are exchanged.
The petition was filed by advocate Sirsanya Banerjee, the son of TMC leader-cum-advocate Kalyan Bandopadhyay, and also a TMC candidate from the Uttarpara assembly constituency. The petitioner alleged incidents of post-poll violence in several areas, including attacks on party offices and the displacement of workers.
The case relates to allegations of assaults on political workers and attacks on party offices following the high-stakes elections in which the TMC ended its 15-year rule and the BJP came to power in West Bengal.
Banerjee, who completed her law degree from Jogesh Chandra College of Law in 1982, also told the court that it was her first appearance before the High Court and added that she was contesting the matter in her capacity as a lawyer.
The TMC has approached the Calcutta High Court seeking judicial intervention over alleged post-poll violence across West Bengal after the BJP’s victory in the assembly elections.
The matter was mentioned before Chief Justice Sujoy Paul. In the plea, the party alleged multiple incidents of arson, vandalism, and attacks on TMC workers and party offices in different parts of the state following the election results.
The petition requested directions for the protection of affected party workers and a proper investigation into the alleged violence.
Reports of clashes and vandalism were reported from several locations including Kolkata, Howrah, and district towns.
Both the BJP and the TMC have reportedly traded allegations regarding the incidents. TMC leaders claimed that several party workers were killed after the election results and demanded a court-monitored probe.
In the 2026 West Bengal Assembly elections, the BJP won 207 seats, ending the TMC’s 15-year rule, while the TMC managed to secure 80 seats.
Case Title: Sirsanya Bandopadhyay Vs Union of India
