"Ruling govt cannot suppress minority" and other key observations from Calcutta High Court judgment on post poll violence in West Bengal

Ruling government chosen by majority cannot act in a discriminatory manner to suppress minority, the Calcutta High Court observed in its judgement on post poll violence in the State of West Bengal. .Three separate but concurring judgments were delivered by a Bench of Acting Chief Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justices IP Mukerji, Harish Tandon, Soumen Sen and Subrata Talukdar on a batch of pleas highlighting the gruesome violence that occurred in the State after Mamata Banerjee led All India Trinamool Congress had secured a thumping victory in the State. The Court called for a probe by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) into cases of murder and crimes against women that took place during post-poll violence in West Bengal.Cases other than murder and rape of women, will be probe by a Special Investigation Team, the Court further ordered. .Below are some of the key observations made by the High Court in its judgment (Susmita Saha Dutta v. Union of India).1. Ruling government cannot suppress minority.In an emerging modern democracy, the basic right of the people in exercising their voting rights and choosing the candidate is eminently ubiquitary (sic). "Ruling Government chosen by the majority has no relevance nor can act in a discriminatory manner so as to suppress the minority. The equality is the hallmark of the Constitution schemes and the aspiration reposed by the people of India," the judgment said. .2. Distrust in government not to be confused with the Constitution .The Court held that the constitution seeks to achieve equality through the protection of a party neutral civil service, the binding legal obligations on the administration and independence of the judiciary. It further said that the problem arises when neutrality of civil service is compromised and when the state machinery fails to behave and function honestly, fairly and impartially"Distrust in a particular government should not be confused with and be mistaken for distrust in the Constitution," the Court said..3. Maintenance of law and order and registration of criminal cases is the responsibility of the State not the Election Commission .The Court accepted the Election Commission's argument that State is responsible for maintenance of law and order even during election process. It held that "the State cannot be allowed to blow hot and cold at the same breath." "There is nothing placed on record by the state that even normal law and order, and registration of criminal cases comes within the purview of EC. Constitutional obligations of the State do not get vested in the Election Commission during the process of elections," the court held .The court held that the fact finding committee had transgressed its limits and the remarks tabled and recommendations made were uncalled. "Although the fact finding committee has made scathing remarks and made recommendations against politicians and police officers I am of the view that such remarks and recommendations were uncalled for and to that extent the committee has transgressed its limits." the court observed.4. Citizen has right against State to expect that offender is brought to justice .While referring to the violence in the state, the court opined that if a crime is suspected to have been committed, it is the duty of the State to investigate into it, apprehend the offender and prosecute him. "An ordinary citizen has a right against the State to expect that the alleged offender is brought to justice," Justice IP Mukerji said in his concurring opinion..5. Our country never propagates violent movements; freedom was achieved through Non-violent Movement.Justice Harish Tandon in his concurring opinion held that any violation during the poll or after and the partisan attitude of the chosen government offends the basic fabric of the constitution and the rights guaranteed therein. "Our country never propagates violent movements as the freedom was achieved due to the Non-violent Movements inculcating a sense in the mind of rulers that the suppression of the rights of the people and the aspiration for the freedom is invoiable," Justice Tandon said in his judgment..6. Court cannot be a mute spectator The Court said that that it cannot be a mute spectator or remain apathetic to the voices of aggrieved persons but must rise to the occasion to protect such rights. "There may be cases which are not relatable to post-poll violence but the persons have been deprived of their rights being not addressed through a well-recognized system in place and therefore there is no fetter on the part of the Court to entrust investigation to impartial, independent agency constituted for the purpose of rendering justice to deprived persons," Justice Tandon's concurring judgment said..7. In a democracy, voice of dissent has to be heard and respected.Justice Soumen Sen in his concurring opinion said that in a democracy the voice of dissent has to be heard and respected. Justice Sen discussed the role of the State, while referring to Nani Palkhivala's book - India's Priceless Heritage.The role of the State has been beautifully captured in the following words by one of the most eminent jurists of India Nani Palkhivala in his book “India’s Priceless Heritage”: .“It would be hard to improve upon the sense of values which made ancient India so great. Our old sages judged the greatness of a State not by the extent of its empire or by the size of its wealth, but by the degree of righteousness and justice which marked the public administration and the private lives of the citizens,” the judgment quoted from the book..8. Constitutional courts as protector of human rights .Justice Sen in his concurring judgment said that failure to conduct a fair investigation or an attempt to shield culprits has "undermined the prestige, honesty, impartiality and dignity of institutions created and entrusted for maintaining law and order and ensure safety and security of citizens."In such circumstance, Constitutional courts come into picture. "Here comes the role of the Constitutional Courts as the protector of Human Rights. We as judges are required to constantly remind ourselves of sentinel on the qui vive if the call of the constitutional conscience is to retain its meaning," Justice Sen said..9. It is not only the responsibility of investigating agency but also of courts to ensure that investigation is fair.With regard to fair investigation, the Court said that investigation should be judicious, fair, transparent and expeditious to ensure compliance to the basic rule of law."It is not only the responsibility of the investigating agency but as well that of the Courts to ensure that investigation is fair and does not in any way hamper the freedom of an individual except in accordance with law. Equally enforceable canon of criminal law is that the high responsibility lies upon the investigating agency not to conduct an investigation in tainted and unfair manner," the Court said..[Read Judgment]