“Application dismissed!” says Calcutta High Court , upon West Bengal govt plea to recall order directing NHRC intervention in violence complaints.

The West Bengal government’s request to recall the order directing the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) to investigate a slew of PILS alleging displacement of people from their homes, physical assault, property destruction, and ransacking of places of business as a result of post-election violence in the state was denied today by a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court.
The state government’s lawyer, Advocate General Kishore Dutta, argued that the Court should define “post-poll violence.”
“Any violence can not be called post-poll violence,” he said and insisted on another chance so that they could put forward more information to get the case decided in this court. He further mentioned that he wouldn’t say the state didn’t act. They’ve already taken steps in this direction.
Whereas the petitioners’ lawyer, Priyanka Tibrewal, argued that the decision should not be revoked because no prejudice had been created by it. Further, the High Court also observed that a report provided by the State Legal Services Secretary presents a different picture. Despite the fact that the state government has categorically denied the events since the beginning, they have recently begun to do so again.
The bench issued the judgement on June 18, based on a report from the Member Secretary of the West Bengal State Legal Services Authority, which said that 3,243 people had been affected as of June 10 midday.
In the cases registered, the complaints were referred to the superintendents of the police or the police stations in question, but no reaction was obtained, according to the WBSLSA Member Secretary.
It was observed that the affidavits after affidavits produced by the petitioner grievances wherein it was claimed that, despite being reinstated to their homes, they are threatened with cross-cases being filed against them, or that they are forced to write that they have made no complaints, or that their right to livelihood is sought to be damaged in the way described above.
So here upon seeing the inactivity of the State government, the bench remarked this exercise of filing of affidavit and counter affidavit will continue. It may not lead us anywhere. This is why the responsibility was handed over to the NHRC and the government’s plea to recall the judgement was dismissed.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this:
search previous next tag category expand menu location phone mail time cart zoom edit close