Logo

Subscribe
Sign in
News
Columns
Interviews
Law Firms
Apprentice Lawyer
Legal Jobs
हिंदी
ಕನ್ನಡ
News
Calcutta High Court takes suo motu cognisance of alleged sexual assault of women at
gunpoint in Sandeshkhali
Meanwhile, the Section 144, CrPC order imposed in the area was set aside by another
judge of the Court, who criticised the State for not arresting the TMC leaders
accused of torturing the villagers of Sandeshkhali.
Calcutta High Court
Calcutta High Court
Meera Emmanuel
Published on:
14 Feb 2024, 12:13 pm
4 min read
The Calcutta High Court on Tuesday took suo motu cognisance of reports that women
in Sandeshkhali village of 24 Paraganas district in West Bengal were subjected to
sexual assault "at gunpoint" and that tribal lands were being forcibly taken away
from villagers. [The Court’s on its Own Motion Vs. State of West Bengal].

Justice Apurpa Sinha Ray recorded that he was “grossly disappointed” after
examining news reports that indicated that “good numbers of ladies in Sandeshkhali,
North 24 Parganas have been sexually assaulted at gun points.”

“Considering all the aspects I am constrained to take suo moto cognizance over the
alleged incidents in respect of only the allegation of sexual assaults of ladies in
Sandeshkhali, North 24 Parganas at gun points and transfer of lands of tribal
people in violation of relevant laws,” the Court said.

The Court appointed advocate Jayanta Narayan Chattopadhyay to assist the Court as
an amicus curiae and posted the matter for further hearing on February 20.

Justice Apurba Sinha Ray

Justice Apurba Sinha Ray
As per reports, at least three Trinamool Congress Party (TMC) leaders, Sheikh
Shajahan, Shiba Prasad Hazra and Uttam Sardar are alleged to have been involved in
the land grabbing activities and the torture of villagers in Sandeshkhali.

These allegations also fell under the scanner of another judge of the High Court,
Justice Jay Sengupta on Tuesday, when he quashed an order issued by the district
administration under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) which
restricted the movement of people in Sandeshkali.

The Court was told that the TMC leaders were forcibly taking over agricultural land
in the village and forcing villagers into labour without the proper payment of
wages. Further, the Court was told that the miscreants would also sexually exploit
women in the village in their offices at night.

The situation in the village deteriorated over the last couple of days with
villagers carrying out protests in front of police stations and even setting fire
to property belonging to Uttam Sardar, who was said to have been placed under
arrest after media pressure.

“The atrocities on the villagers by three prime miscreants belonging to the ruling
political dispensation, as alleged, are absolutely repulsive and heart wrenching,”
Justice Sengupta observed in his order.

Justice Jay Sengupta

Justice Jay Sengupta
Meanwhile, Advocate General Kishore Datta informed the Court of steps being taken
to allay the tensions in Sandeshkhali including the appointment of an officer in
the rank of DIG, CID to receive complaints from the villagers. He also defended the
imposition of the Section 144order in the area.

The Court, however, observed that merely deputing such an officer to receive
complaints would not suffice and that the police needs to address the issues with
better care and circumspection.

The Court proceeded to hold that Section 144 order was not warranted and could even
leave the villagers more vulnerable to further atrocities.

“Non-arresting of the prime miscreants and their accomplices coupled with

restriction on free movement of the villagers, at least in terms of Section 144 of
the Code, may pose undue harassment to the inhabitants of the area and make them
more vulnerable to further atrocities, especially in view of the peculiar geography
of the place,” the Court said.

Justice Sengupta added that the Section 144 order was promulgated on “bald and
ritualistic” references to a possibility of a breach of peace.

“Such promulgation has to be done by exercising more care and circumspection and
surely, with a better reasoning. After all we are dealing with the rights of the
citizens of the country. Even on facts, no material has been placed before this
Court to justify as to why the entire area under the Sandeskhali Police Station
should be covered under an order passed in terms of 144,” the Court observed before
setting aside the Section 144 order.

The Court added that instead of imposing restrictions on the movement of villagers,
the State may do well to arrest the alleged perpetrators of the atrocities in
Sandeshkhali village to inspire the confidence of the villagers.

“Instead of exhausting all their efforts to quell protests by, at best lathi-
weilding village women, the police authorities need to fix their priorities better
and look for the two alleged prime perpetrators of crime. Only if they are hauled
up, can the tortured women of the village muster enough courage to lodge all their
complaints,” the order said.

The Court also criticised the internet ban imposed in the area although he noted
that the said ban was "fortunately" lifted later on.

"One wonders what could the purpose of restricting the internet in this area.
However, fortunately the ban has been lifted from mid night, yesterday," the Court
said.

Justice Sen Gupta proceeded to dispose of the matter while urging the State police
to keep a vigil over the area by deploying more armed personnel and through the use
of technology like drones.

[Read Orders]
Attachment
PDF
Sandeshkhali - Order passed by Justice Apurba Sinha Ray.pdf
Preview
Attachment
PDF
Sandeshkhali - Order passed by Justice Jay Sengupta.pdf
Preview
Calcutta High CourtTMCJustice Apurba Sinha RayJustice Jay SenguptaSandeshkhali
barandbench
Follow Us

Subscribe
News
Corporate & In-House News
Litigation
Law & Policy
Law Schools
Judges
Interviews
Corporate & In-House
Litigation
Law & Policy
Law Schools
Columns
Corporate & In-House
Law & Policy
Litigation
The Recruiters
Working Title
Others
WhatsApp Updates
News
Columns
Apprentice Lawyer
Student Subscription
Law Firms
Viewpoint
Dealstreet
Terms Of Use
Privacy Policy
Contact Us
Careers
Advertise with us
About us
Copyright © 2021 Bar and Bench. All Rights Reserved

Powered by Quintype