Calcutta High Court: Stays CPI(M) Book Stall Order

• The Calcutta High Court stayed a single-judge's order that had permitted the CPI(M) to erect a temporary book stall near its office on Bongaon Jessore Road.
• The State government appealed the initial ruling, alleging that the CPI(M) was encroaching on public land and had suppressed documents.
• The CPI(M) argued that disseminating knowledge was a fundamental duty and that other unauthorized stalls in the area were not being obstructed.
• Chief Justice Ravindra Vithalrao Ghuge questioned the CPI(M)'s defense, implying that others' violations do not justify one's own.

Can there be any justification?...Just because many thieves are roaming around, I [CPI(M)] will not be caught?

The Calcutta High Court recently intervened in a dispute concerning the placement of a temporary book stall by the Communist Party of India (Marxist), or CPI(M). On a Friday session, a division bench comprising Chief Justice Ravindra Vithalrao Ghuge and Justice Shabbar Rashidi issued an order to stay a previous ruling. This stay effectively halted the implementation of a single-judge's directive that had permitted the CPI(M) to erect the book stall. The proposed location for this temporary structure was situated near the party's office on Bongaon Jessore Road. This judicial action followed an appeal lodged by the West Bengal State government, which sought to overturn the initial decision.

The genesis of the legal challenge lies in a petition filed by the CPI(M) itself. The political party had approached the High Court, alleging that state authorities were actively preventing them from setting up their book stall. Justice Saugata Bhattacharyya had, on the preceding Thursday, ruled in favor of the CPI(M), thereby allowing the installation of the temporary structure. Representing the CPI(M), Advocate Shamim Ahammed contended that numerous other individuals and groups had established similar stalls in the immediate vicinity, many of which operated without official sanction. He highlighted that despite this widespread practice, only CPI(M) members faced obstruction in their efforts. Furthermore, the CPI(M) asserted that the dissemination of knowledge and information through literature and books constituted a fundamental duty for them.

The State government, through Additional Advocate General Billwadal Bhattacharyya, presented a robust challenge to the single-judge's order. The State's primary contention was that the CPI(M) members were engaged in an unauthorized occupation of public land by attempting to erect their stall. Bhattacharyya argued that in such circumstances, the party could not legitimately invoke fundamental rights to justify their actions. A significant accusation leveled by the State was that the CPI(M) had deliberately withheld crucial documents or information from the single-judge during the initial proceedings. The State also emphasized the responsibility of police officials to prevent public nuisances, implying that the unauthorized stall fell under this category.

During the appellate hearing, Chief Justice Ravindra Vithalrao Ghuge critically questioned the CPI(M)'s argument regarding the presence of other unauthorized stalls. He posed a pointed rhetorical question, asking whether the existence of multiple lawbreakers could justify one's own transgression, stating, "Can there be any justification?...Just because many thieves are roaming around, I [CPI(M)] will not be caught?" This remark underscored the court's skepticism towards the "everyone else is doing it" defense. The stay order by the division bench signifies a temporary victory for the State government, reinforcing the principle that public land use is subject to regulation and that claims of fundamental rights must be balanced against the prevention of encroachment and public nuisance, especially when allegations of factual suppression are raised.

Lawyers advising clients on temporary structures or public demonstrations should note the Calcutta High Court's willingness to stay single-judge orders on appeal, particularly when issues of public land encroachment and alleged suppression of facts are raised. This case underscores the state's power to prevent unauthorized use of public land, even when fundamental rights claims are asserted, and highlights the importance of proper permits and full disclosure in such matters.

Source: Original reporting via legal news outlet.