Beldanga Violence | PIL In Calcutta High Court Alleges 'Pre-Planned' Attack On Hindus; State Says No Objection To Additional Forces

The Calcutta High Court today heard an Interim Application moved by Leader of the Opposition Suvendu Adhikari in a pending Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea, seeking the immediate deployment of Central Forces in the violence-hit Beldanga area of Murshidabad district.

The unrest in Beldanga began last week after the body of a 36-year-old migrant worker, who was allegedly killed in a gruesome manner while working in Jharkhand, was brought to his native village in Murshidabad. Subsequently, another migrant worker was assaulted in Bihar, resulting in a worsening of the situation.

A division bench of Chief Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Partha Sarathi Sen presided over the hearing.

The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the district is sensitive to communal tensions and that riots have occurred there before. The members of the Hindu Community are being targeted, and an 'Ethnic Cleansing' is ongoing.

The petitioner submitted the statement of the Superintendent of Police, who stated that the violence was a pre-planned and calculated action. The violence also caused damage to the properties of the Indian Railways and Highways.

"The district is communally sensitive, and riots have occurred here before. A carnage has unfolded where members of the minority community [in the area] are being targeted," the counsel submitted, urging the court that if the State police failed to contain the situation, the National Investigation Agency (NIA) Act should be invoked."

The petitioner, therefore, sought immediate deployment of the Central Forces, asserting that if the forces had been deployed earlier, the violence could have been minimised.

It was further argued that if the State fails to deploy the same, the Union should be directed to invoke powers under the National Investigation Agency Act. The petitioner also sought the invocation of prohibitory orders under Section 163 BNS (Section 144 CrPC) in the area.

He also referred to the order of April 2025, where Central Forces were deployed in Murshidabad, after Anti-Waqf Bill protests turned violent. The bench had also directed the establishment of a BSF camp in the area.

The counsel asserted that the requisite forces are available, but the State Government is not utilising the same. The bench was also apprised that Adhikari had made a representation to the concerned authorities to invoke Section 163 BNS in the concerned area, noting it to be a 'very sensitive area', but no such orders were issued to his knowledge.

On the other hand, the counsels for the State Government argued that the State has instructed that on January 16 friday, a crowd of 300-400 people had blocked Highway no 12 and a protest was held over the alleged killing of a migrant worker.

Bengalis have been beaten up and killed in different states. Then, naturally, commotions occurred. 12:15 hours, some members also assaulted a lady along with the cameraman to prevent reporting.

Again, on January 17, police discovered that 400-500 persons were blocking Highway no 12. They also destroyed property on the highways, including a passenger bus and a municipal vehicle. The state argued that despite lawful restraint by the police officials, the mob turned violent and assaulted the officers.

Following the incident, 30 people were arrested, and criminal cases were initiated against 4 accused men. The State submitted that more people are being identified through CCTV video footage.

In response to these submissions, the bench questioned whether the earlier-deployed forces were still present in Murishabad and could be moved to Beldanga.

The State submitted that CAPF teams were already camped in the area and were being actively utilised.

The bench noted that if additional forces are required, a requisition could be made to the Union of India. The bench also observed the objections of the petitioner over alleged police inaction prior to the violence.

However, the State argued that action was taken immediately in both instances, on January 16 and 17 and that the reporter who was attacked on the 16th was, in fact, rescued by the police officials.

Justice Sen pointedly observed that the petitioner's grievance was not just about the violence, but that "Police inaction led to the aggravated situation."

Addressing the deployment issue, the State submitted that CAPF teams are already camped in the area and are being actively utilised.

"The area is very peaceful; the market is functioning smoothly. If additional companies are to be deployed, I don't have any issue," the State Counsel submitted.

Case Title: SUVENDU ADHIKARI AND ANR. VS STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. [WPA(P)/153/2025]

[With inputs from JAYANTI PAHWA]