In a significant development, the Calcutta High Court, under the jurisdiction of Justice Apurpa Sinha Ray, has initiated suo motu cognizance in response to distressing reports emerging from Sandeshkhali village in the 24 Paraganas district of West Bengal. The reports suggest instances of sexual assault against women at gunpoint and the forceful acquisition of tribal lands. The court, under the case titled "The Court’s on its Own Motion Vs. State of West Bengal," expressed profound disappointment upon scrutinizing news accounts detailing numerous cases of sexual assault in the North 24 Parganas area.
Given the gravity of the situation, Justice Apurpa Sinha Ray, compelled by the circumstances, decided to take suo moto cognizance specifically concerning the alleged sexual assaults on women in Sandeshkhali. The court also noted the reported violation of relevant laws regarding the transfer of lands belonging to tribal communities.
To ensure a fair examination of the matter, the court appointed advocate Jayanta Narayan Chattopadhyay as an amicus curiae. The case has been scheduled for further hearing on February 20.
The distressing reports implicate at least three leaders from the Trinamool Congress Party (TMC), namely Sheikh Shajahan, Shiba Prasad Hazra, and Uttam Sardar, in activities related to land grabbing and the mistreatment of Sandeshkhali villagers. Another judge of the High Court, Justice Jay Sengupta, intervened on Tuesday by quashing a Section 144 order issued by the district administration, which restricted the movement of people in Sandeshkhali.
Allegations include the forceful takeover of agricultural land, compelling villagers into labor without proper wages, and the sexual exploitation of women in the village. The deteriorating situation led to protests by villagers, resulting in property damage to Uttam Sardar's belongings. Sardar was reportedly arrested under media pressure.
Justice Sengupta, in his order, expressed strong disapproval of the reported atrocities, labeling them as "absolutely repulsive and heart-wrenching." Advocate General Kishore Datta informed the court about steps taken to ease tensions in Sandeshkhali, including the appointment of a DIG, CID officer to receive complaints from villagers. However, the court emphasized that mere appointment of an officer would not suffice, urging the police to address the issues with greater care.
The court held that the Section 144 order was not justified and could make villagers more susceptible to further atrocities. Justice Sengupta criticized the order, stating that it was based on "bald and ritualistic" references without proper reasoning. The court suggested that instead of restricting the movement of villagers, the state should focus on arresting the alleged perpetrators to instill confidence in the affected population.
Addressing the internet ban imposed in the area, the court questioned its purpose, although acknowledging its fortunate subsequent lift. Justice Sengupta disposed of the matter, urging the state police to maintain vigilance over the area through increased personnel deployment and the use of technology like drones.
In summary, the Calcutta High Court's intervention sheds light on a disturbing situation in Sandeshkhali, emphasizing the need for a comprehensive and sensitive approach to address the reported incidents of sexual assault and land-related violations. The court's scrutiny serves as a beacon of hope for justice and accountability in the face of such grave allegations.