Calcutta High Court Monthly Digest: May 2026

Merely Driving Car With Contraband Not 'Possession' Under NDPS Act, No Direct Nexus: Calcutta High Court Grants BailCase: Saw Herald vs The StateCitation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 204The Calcutta High Court has granted bail to an accused in an NDPS case, holding that mere driving of a vehicle from which contraband is recovered, without any recovery from the accused or prima facie material showing control over the seized substance, does not amount to “possession” so as to attract the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act.Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya sitting at the Port Blair circuit bench observed that although the concept of possession under the Act is not confined to physical recovery from the person of the accused, there must at least be prima facie material indicating that the accused had control over the contraband, and merely driving a car from which recovery is made from a passenger does not satisfy this requirement.Accused Must Be Released Immediately After Bail, Cannot Be Forced To File Habeas Corpus Plea: Calcutta High CourtCase Title: Saw Timothy v. State and AnotherCitation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 205The Calcutta High Court has cautioned the State authorities against delaying the release of accused persons despite the grant of bail, observing that such conduct undermines personal liberty.A Division Bench of Justices Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Smita Das De was dealing with a habeas corpus plea alleging continued detention despite bail.Recording a strong word of caution, the Court observed: : “On every occasion when an accused obtains bail, he/she should be immediately released and cannot be compelled to come to Court every time by filing Habeas Corpus petitions.”NDPS Act | S.37 Rigours For Bail Not Attracted To Offence For Cultivation Of 'Ganja' In Absence Of Commercial Quantity: Calcutta High CourtCase: Augustine Ballava vs StateCitation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 206The Calcutta High Court (Circuit Bench at Port Blair) has granted bail to a 52-year-old cultivator accused of cultivating cannabis plants, holding that the stringent conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act are not attracted to offences under Section 20(a) in the absence of any commercial quantity. Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, while allowing the bail application, observed that the statutory rigours imposing a reverse burden and stricter standards for bail would not apply in such cases.WB Poll: Calcutta High Court Declines To Interfere In Nomination Dispute Mid-Polls, Says Remedy Lies In Election PetitionCase: Arindam Ghosh Vs. The Union of India & Ors.Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 207The Calcutta High Court has refused to interfere with the acceptance of a candidate's nomination during the ongoing election process, holding that such disputes must be agitated through an election petition after the polls.Disposing of a writ petition filed by an independent candidate from the 117–Rajarhat Gopalpur Assembly Constituency, Justice Krishna Rao observed that “if any order is passed, the same will amount to interference with the election process,” and therefore declined to exercise writ jurisdiction at this stage.Appointing Authority Can Dismiss Employee Despite Being Appellate Authority If Higher Appeal Forum Exists: Calcutta High CourtCase: The Lieutenant Governor & Ors. v. Dharam RajCitation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 208The Calcutta High Court has held that an appointing authority is not precluded from imposing the penalty of dismissal merely because it also functions as the appellate authority, so long as a higher forum of appeal is available in the administrative hierarchy. Setting aside an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, the Division Bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Justice Smita Das De restored the dismissal of a government employee, observing that the Tribunal had erred in law despite upholding the findings on merits.“Cannot Maintain Double Standards”: Calcutta HC Pulls Up Centre For Selective Compliance Of Court Order Over Andaman DRMs Regularisation RowCase: Case: Union of India & Ors. v. Andaman Sarvajanik Nirman Vibhag Mazdoor Sangh & Ors.Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 209The Calcutta High Court has held that the Union Government cannot selectively comply with a binding judicial decision by implementing one part of it while resisting the rest on the ground of “policy,” in a case concerning regularisation of Daily Rated Mazdoors (DRMs) in the Andaman & Nicobar Islands.Deciding an appeal in Union of India & Ors. v. Andaman Sarvajanik Nirman Vibhag Mazdoor Sangh & Ors., a Division Bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Justice Smita Das De upheld the direction to consider the 2023 regularisation scheme, coming down heavily on the Centre's conduct.Exemption From Minimum Qualification For Promotion Arbitrary, Violates UGC Norms & Awards “Premium" To Illegality: Calcutta High CourtCase: Union of India & Ors. v. Shri Yohannan Sajeevan & Ors.Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 210The Calcutta High Court has upheld the...

Calcutta High Court Monthly Digest: May 2026

Srinjoy Das

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Calcutta High Court Monthly Digest: May 2026

Srinjoy Das

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers