'Stifling Other Parties Not Spirit Of Democracy': Calcutta High Court Tells State In CPM's Plea Seeking Durga Puja Book Stall

The Calcutta High Court on Wednesday (October 14) observed that the State should “not stifle the voice of other parties, as that is not the spirit of democracy” while hearing a plea filed by the Communist Party of India (Marxist) (CPIM) seeking permission to set up a book stall outside its office during Durga Puja.

Justice Saugata Bhattacharya questioned why the CPIM should be prevented from setting up its stall if other organisations were permitted to erect structures on the same road. It directed the investigating officer to submit a report by Thursday on whether other stalls had been set up on the road without permission.

“I don't deny that permission is needed. But if you are allowing one group then allow the others as well,” the Court observed.

The CPIM submitted that it had been setting up the book stall outside its office for over 60 years, but was prevented from doing so this year after the Hindu Jagran Manch allegedly obstructed it from erecting a temporary structure. The petitioner alleged that the organisation had set up its own stage in the area without police interference.

The State government objected to the maintainability of the plea, contending that the dispute concerned permission to use land belonging to the Public Works Department (PWD) and did not constitute a case of police inaction. The State also argued that merely intimating the police about the proposed stall did not amount to obtaining the requisite permission from the competent authorities.

The Court, however, questioned the State's stand in light of the petitioner's allegation that it had been prevented from setting up the stall while other structures were permitted on the road.

“How is this stall (Hindu Jagran Manch) allowed? It is a huge stall,” the Court asked.

When the State's counsel submitted that the Hindu Jagran Manch's stall did not form part of the petition and that instructions could not be obtained on the issue during the hearing, the Court questioned whether the petitioner's request to set up a book stall justified the alleged obstruction.

The Court also asked why the matter should not be treated as one involving police inaction if the petitioners were prevented from erecting their temporary structure. The State responded that both groups had lodged FIRs and that its case was not one of police inaction.

The Court observed that the police would have a role to play if the petitioners' structure was removed or they were restrained from taking steps to set up the book stall.

Emphasising the need for consistency in granting permission, the Court said there should be a uniform policy governing the setting up of stalls on PWD land.

The Court granted the CPIM liberty to file a supplementary affidavit placing relevant facts and documents on record. It directed the investigating officer to submit a report on whether other stalls had been set up on the road without permission and listed the matter for further hearing on Thursday (October 15).