The Calcutta High Court has expressed concern over strikes by lawyers at two subordinate courts following reported attacks on advocates, and directed efforts to persuade the Bar Associations to call off the strikes.

A Division Bench of Chief Justice Ravindra Vithalrao Ghuge and Justice Om Narayan Rai was hearing a suo motu PIL initiated after an advocate, Sayan Banerjee, was allegedly attacked within the Baruipur court premises after appearing in a criminal proceeding. The incident involved unknown persons allegedly pelting eggs at him and shouting slogans of “Sayan Banerjee go back”.

The Court had earlier directed the Superintendent of Police, South 24 Parganas, to submit a report on the incident and subsequently registered the matter as a suo motu PIL.

On October 7, the Bench noted that the Amicus Curiae, Senior Advocate Saikat Banerjee, had submitted a proposed PIL petition arraying 71 respondents, including the State Government, police authorities, district administrations, several Bar Associations and the Bar Councils.

The Court issued notice to Respondent Nos. 1 to 70, returnable on December 11, 2026.

During the hearing, Advocate Subhankar Nag informed the Court that further “untoward incidents” had allegedly taken place within the precincts of the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kolkata, and at the Chandannagar Court in Hooghly district. He further informed the Court that lawyers at both courts had commenced strikes.

The Bench said it was “equally disturbed” by the commencement of strikes at the two court premises.

The Court requested Ajay Chaubey, an elected member of the West Bengal Bar Council who was present in Court, to approach the office bearers of the concerned Bar Associations and make efforts to persuade them to call off the strikes.

The Bench observed that continuation of the strikes would be “counter productive” as litigants would lose opportunities to have their cases heard and decided on scheduled dates, while adjournments would cause “grave hardships” to litigants.

Chaubey assured the Court that he would be accompanied by members of the Bar Council and would approach the concerned Bar Associations. He also agreed to inform the Court about the developments.

Though the PIL was made returnable on December 11, the Court directed that the matter be listed on October 12 in the Urgent Admissions Category, only to ascertain whether the strikes at the two courts had been withdrawn.

Meanwhile, the Additional Advocates General appearing for the State submitted that they would convey to the concerned authorities the need to strengthen security at all courts to prevent further untoward incidents.

The Court also directed that the CCTV footage relating to the Baruipur incident be preserved. It noted that the report submitted by the Superintendent of Police, Baruipur Police District, indicated that an unknown person was seen in the CCTV footage throwing an object.