Calcutta High Court seeks State response to Suvendhu Adhikari's plea alleging violence against Hindus, Sikhs

The Calcutta High Court on Wednesday agreed to hear a plea filed by Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader and Leader of the Opposition, Suvendu Adhikari flagging concern over communal violence that allegedly took place against Hindus and Sikhs in Kolkata's Rajabazar, amid the State's strong denial of such a 'communal' incident having taken place. .After hearing preliminary submissions, a Bench of Chief Justice TS Sivagnanam and Justice H Bhattacharya today asked the State to file a report before posting the matter for hearing on November 21.The Court also urged the State to take all measures to ensure that peace is maintained in West Bengal, more so in view of the upcoming Chhath Puja celebrations."It is the responsibility of the State to ensure that people celebrate the festival with the usual flavour without any hindrance to the same," the Court said..The petitioners' counsel today told the Court that there have been several instances of attacks on Durga Puja pandals as well as temples. In particular, he highlighted that a "huge communal situation" took place in the heart of the city in Rajabazar (Narkeldanga) when a 1000-strong mob from a particular community attacked Hindus and Sikhs."(On November 1) A mob of around 10,000 people from a particular community assembled and they carried on this carnage. It continued on November 2, a Gurudwara was attacked and thereafter the residences of persons belonging to Hindu and Sikh communities were targeted," he claimed.Statues of freedom fighters were completely destroyed and a Krishna temple was also attacked, he added. He also told the Court that the State police is trying to bury these incidents."The police have come up with a version on social media, claiming that these are all rumors. They say, an attempt was made on social media to create a fake narrative (that it was a parking dispute which escalated)," the counsel said..Advocate General Kishore Datta today strongly refuted the allegations of a communal clash and maintained that a communal colour was being given to a dispute between two individuals that spun out of control.The State's law officer submitted that the altercation between the two men escalated when one of them got a sword and a firearm from his house.The AG added that while a crowd gathered at the spot, it was not a case where two communities clashed and that the gathering only comprised members from one community.He claimed that there were photos to prove this version of events. Six FIRs have been registered and 23 persons have been arrested for their alleged role in the ensuing clash, the AG said. He maintained that there was no communal angle to the clashes..During today's hearing, Bench noted that it had not come across many reports on the alleged mob violence."If a place of worship is being attacked, then it is not attack against a particular community or sect; it is attack generally on a public. So this cannot go unreported ... Speaking for myself, up to 24th October I was here, nothing was there in newspapers," the Chief Justice remarked.The petitioners' counsel replied by pointing out that at least two journalists reported on the communal clashes, but were later arrested by the State police. He added that such intimidatory tactics are not new and that there are around 10-12 cases where the State has arrested journalists or raided their homes or frozen their bank accounts. .The Advocate General, meanwhile, questioned whether the petition has been filed only to gain political mileage. He claimed that the petitioners were making irresponsible statements. "I don't say politicians cannot file PILs. But politicians who are after the ruling dispensation day in and day out - 365 days, both the petitioners ... whether these kind of writ petitions will provide political mileage?" he remarked. Chief Justice Sivagnanam replied by noting that even he had earlier been surprised to see a Leader of Opposition (Suvendhu Adhikari) filing so many cases and had advised the politician not to exhaust himself. However, he acknowledged that politicians may take up such cases for larger causes. "Of course, parties fight petitions for a common cause ... He holds a very responsible position," the Chief Justice added.