Calcutta High Court Weekly Round-Up: 4th May To 10th May, 2026

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 Raj Citation: 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 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.Claims Of Salary Withholding & Harassment Do Not Amuont To Defamation Without Reputational Harm: Calcutta HCCase Title: Sukanta Chattopadhyay vs. Kakali Bhattacharya Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 211The 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.Father Allegedly Throwing Tennis Ball At Child During Visitation, Attempting To Take Him Away Not 'Assault': Calcutta High CourtCase Title: Subhadeep Chakraborty vs. State of West Bengal & Anr. Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 212The 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.Taking Child Away From Wife For Welfare Not Cruelty: Calcutta High Court Quashes S.498A IPC Case Against Husband, His 84-Yr-Old MotherCase Title: Shantanu Moitra & Anr. v. State of West Bengal & Anr. Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Cal) 213The Calcutta High Court has quashed a criminal case under Section 498A IPC against a husband...

Calcutta High Court Weekly Round-Up: 4th May To 10th May, 2026

Srinjoy Das

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Srinjoy Das

Calcutta High Court Weekly Round-Up: 4th May To 10th May, 2026

Srinjoy Das

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Srinjoy Das

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers