Calcutta High Court Weekly Round-Up: 4th May To 10th May, 2026
Srinjoy Das
13 May 2026 10:50 AM IST
Case: Arindam Ghosh Vs. The Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 207
The 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.
Case: The Lieutenant Governor & Ors. v. Dharam Raj
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 208
The 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 Row
Case: Case: Union of India & Ors. v. Andaman Sarvajanik Nirman Vibhag Mazdoor Sangh & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 209
The 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.
Case: Union of India & Ors. v. Shri Yohannan Sajeevan & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 210
The Calcutta High Court has upheld the striking down of a recruitment rule that exempted certain in-service candidates from possessing minimum educational qualifications for promotion, holding that such relaxation was arbitrary, violative of UGC norms, and amounted to granting a “premium to illegality.” Dismissing a writ petition filed by the Union of India and the Andaman and Nicobar Administration, the Court affirmed the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal which had invalidated Note-3 of the Recruitment Rules dated October 4, 2022 and directed consequential action.
Case Title: Sukanta Chattopadhyay vs. Kakali Bhattacharya
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 211
The Calcutta High Court has quashed a criminal defamation proceeding against a school Headmaster, holding that allegations relating to salary withholding, harassment, or disciplinary action—without any imputation lowering a person's reputation in the eyes of others—do not constitute an offence under Section 500 of the IPC.
Justice Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee observed that “if the moral or intellectual character of the person concerned is not lowered in the estimation of others, simply making of imputation… cannot per se lead to commission of offence of defamation,” emphasizing that reputational harm is a sine qua non for invoking criminal defamation.
Case Title: Subhadeep Chakraborty vs. State of West Bengal & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 212
The Calcutta High Court quashed criminal proceedings against a father accused of assaulting his minor son during a court-ordered visitation, holding that the allegations, even if taken at face value, did not disclose the essential ingredients of the offences alleged and were inherently improbable.
The case arose from a matrimonial dispute where the petitioner had been granted visitation rights to meet his six-year-old son at the court premises.
Case Title: Shantanu Moitra & Anr. v. State of West Bengal & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 213
The Calcutta High Court has quashed a criminal case under Section 498A IPC against a husband and his aged mother, holding that in the peculiar facts of the case, taking away a child from the mother for his welfare could not amount to “mental cruelty.”
Deciding a revision petition, Justice Apurba Sinha Ray set aside the trial court's order refusing discharge and held that continuation of the proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law.
Case: Mansur Ali @ Mansur Seikh @ Mansur SK @ Machuur Ali V. The State of West Bengal
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 214
The Calcutta High Court has granted bail to an accused booked under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, holding that prolonged pre-trial detention with little progress in trial violates the fundamental right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Arijit Banerjee and Justice Apurba Sinha Ray allowed the appeal filed by Mansur Ali @ Mansur Seikh @ Mansur SK @ Machuur Ali, who had been in custody for over two years and eight months, observing that “he cannot be kept in incarceration indefinitely without convicting him when nobody can tell when the trial will end.”
Case: JYOTIRMOY BISWAS -VS- STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ANR.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 215
The Calcutta High Court has clarified that a spouse's earning capacity cannot be ignored even at the ad-interim stage, setting aside a maintenance order granted to a qualified doctor without examining her financial status in light of the disclosure norms mandated in Rajnesh v. Neha.
Justice Uday Kumar was hearing a criminal revisional application filed by a husband challenging an ex-parte ad-interim order directing him to pay ₹12,000 per month to his wife and ₹8,000 towards maintenance of their minor daughter under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
Case: BIKASH CHANDRA PAUL VS THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 216
The Calcutta High Court has set aside the conviction of a husband under Sections 306 and 498A of the IPC in a 1994 suicide case, holding that the prosecution failed to establish the essential ingredients of abetment or cruelty beyond reasonable doubt. Justice Chaitali Chatterjee Das allowed the criminal appeal and acquitted the appellant, observing that there was “no direct act or incitement to the commission of suicide” attributable to him.
The case arose from a complaint lodged by the deceased woman's brother, who alleged that his sister had been subjected to sustained physical and mental torture by her husband and his sister, culminating in her death by hanging in her matrimonial home. The trial court had convicted the husband in 2009, sentencing him to seven years' rigorous imprisonment under Section 306 IPC and three years under Section 498A IPC. Aggrieved, the husband approached the High Court.
Case: Sampa Sarkar Vs. The State of West Bengal and Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 217
The Calcutta High Court has refused to quash criminal proceedings against a Bangladeshi Hindu woman accused of overstaying in India without a valid visa under the Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025, holding that whether she qualifies for statutory protection as a victim of religious persecution can only be determined at trial.
Justice Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee observed that although the Immigration and Foreigners (Exemption) Order, 2025 grants protection to persecuted minorities from Bangladesh, Pakistan and Afghanistan who entered India on or before December 31, 2024, the burden lies on the accused to establish entitlement to such exemption.
Case Title: Xenixt Technologies Private Limited & Ors. v. Reserve Bank of India & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 218
The Calcutta High Court has held that bank accounts cannot be frozen merely on the basis of complaints received through the Ministry of Home Affairs' cybercrime portal, without any order from a competent court under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
Justice Krishna Rao directed the immediate defreezing of the accounts of Xenixt Technologies Private Limited after finding that neither the bank nor the authorities could show any judicial order authorising the freezing action.
Case Title: Overseas Scrap Trading Corporation vs Howrah Municipal Corporation and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 219
The Howrah Municipal Corporation cannot indefinitely withhold execution of a sale deed in favour of the highest bidder merely because the State Government failed to grant approval, the Calcutta High Court has held, while directing completion of a land sale process pending since 2010.
Justice Shampa Sarkar observed that the statutory powers of the municipal corporation under the Howrah Municipal Corporation Act could not be curtailed by an undisclosed cabinet decision or subsequent government policy, particularly when no statutory rules mandated prior approval from the State.
Case: Meena Gupta Vs. Union of India and others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 220
The Calcutta High Court has held that a Public Interest Litigation challenging alleged violations of the Forest Rights Act in connection with the Great Nicobar infrastructure project is maintainable, rejecting the Union Government's objection that the petitioner lacked locus standi because she is a resident of Hyderabad and not of the Andaman & Nicobar Islands.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Partha Sarathi Sen observed that there can be “no thumb rule” regarding locus standi in PILs and that courts must permit genuine public causes concerning vulnerable communities to be raised even by persons not directly affected.
