SHAMIT SANYAL Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I was hearing W.P. No. 1913 KW) of 2014 (hereafter the first w.p.) on July 21, 2014 when Mr. Aniruddha Chatterjee, learned advocate intervened and submitted that a writ petition [W.P. 20515(W) of 2014] (hereafter the second w.p.) involving the same "speech" which has given rise to the first w.p. is due for being listed on July 23, 2014 and hence both the writ petitions may be heard together. His request was accepted and the writ petitions heard at length on July 23, 2014, one after the other. Order on the point of entertainability of the first w.p. and order on the point of interim relief in the second w.p. were reserved. I propose to decide the said points by this common order. During the last one year, the people of this State have witnessed a multitude of speeches of political leaders owing allegiance to different political groups or parties. Out of them, the speech delivered by Mr. Tapas Paul, Hon'ble Member of Parliament elected to the Lok Sabha from Krishnagar constituency (respondent 10 in the first w.p. and respondent 7 in the second w.p., and hereafter referred to as Mr. Paul) has been at the centre of controversy. While addressing a gathering of people in public view at Chowmaha, in Tehatta subdivision of Nadia district, Mr. Paul is reported by the electronic and print media to have spewed venom against his political opponents, mainly the supporters of CPI (M) party. Video footage that has been made available to the Court as well as newspaper reports that have been annexed to the two writ petitions would reveal that Mr. Paul exhorted his followers to slay his political opponents and to even rape their womenfolk, if they dared to touch them (his followers). There is some dispute with regard to the date on which the speech was delivered, - while according to the media the date is June 14, 2014, Mr. Rajdeep Majumdar, learned advocate representing Mr. Paul, submitted in reply to the Court's query that it was delivered during an election campaign prior to declaration of result of the recently concluded Lok Sabha elections on May 16, 2014. However, the date is not too relevant at this stage.

(2.) The speech of Mr. Paul could not have and did not go unnoticed. The issue was raised in the Parliament, as reported by the media. I need not dilate much on the aspect of protest that followed except noting that the political party to whom Mr. Paul owes allegiance reportedly pulled him up and he has since apologised for the comments made by him to such party.

(3.) According to both the petitioners, despite the speech of Mr. Paul being one that incites hatred and ill-feelings amongst different groups of people and encourages his followers to breach the law by resorting to killing and rape, the police did not consider it necessary to take action resulting in the presentation of these two writ petitions alleging "police inaction".