Kolkata25 minutes ago
- copy link
The petition was heard by a bench of 5 judges. The bench has fixed July 28 for next hearing. -file photo
The Kolkata High Court has shown strictness on the Mamta government in the case of violence in West Bengal after the assembly elections. During the hearing on Thursday, the court said that the government has failed to properly investigate the violence in April and May after the elections. The petition was heard by a bench of 5 judges. The bench has fixed July 28 for next hearing. Earlier on July 26, the government has been asked to file its reply on the report.
During the hearing, senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi appeared on behalf of the Bengal government. Singhvi rejected the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) report. Singhvi called the report politically motivated. Advocate Mahesh Jethmalani appeared for the petitioner during the hearing. He said that the state whose inaction has led to the entire controversy, now wants to investigate the matter. Jethmalani has demanded a probe by an independent agency.
NHRC told the court – there is no rule of law in Bengal
The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) submitted the report to the Calcutta High Court on July 13. The commission had told the court regarding the violence that in Bengal, not the rule of law, but the rule of the ruler. The Bengal violence cases should be investigated outside the state.
After the disclosure of the report on some news channels and websites, Mamata Banerjee had expressed her displeasure. Mamta had said that the commission should respect the judiciary and this report should not be leaked. This report should be placed before the court only.
The 4 biggest points of the commission’s report
1. Cases of violence after Bengal elections should be probed by CBI. Serious crimes like murder and rape should be investigated.
2. The massive violence in Bengal shows that the state government has shown horrific apathy towards the plight of the victims.
3. It is evident from the cases of violence that it has happened with the support of the ruling party. This was done to take revenge on those who dared to support other party during elections.
4. Some organs and officials of the state government remained silent spectators in these incidents of violence and some were themselves involved in these violent incidents.