The Calcutta High Court in the Indian state of West Bengal dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition, seeking a special probe into the assault on Enforcement Directorate (ED) officials, in early January. The PIL originates from a legal framework that enables individuals or groups to prompt judicial interference over matters of public interest.
The dismissed PIL had been filed by an active advocate demanding a writ of mandamus against the National Investigating Agency (NIA) or the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to look into an incident at Sandeshkhali. The claim was purely based on newspaper reports, without significant research. A writ of mandamus refers to a court order obliging a public official or entity to perform a task or correct an abuse of discretion. Under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution, Indian high courts are entitled to issue such a writ. The judge ruled that the petitioner did not provide compelling grounds for the court’s intervention, given the ED’s competence in managing such issues. Thus, the petition was dismissed.
The presiding Chief Justice commented:
‘Earlier PILs would come due to failure of state machinery, asking for a central agency. Here this agency is a central agency, highly technical, they can take care of themselves. Who are you? You have collected newspaper cuttings, without doing any research. Someone cannot fire off your shoulders…’
In the aftermath of these events, three criminal complaints have been lodged in West Bengal, two against anonymous individuals for assaulting ED officials in Sandeshkhali. One accusation alleged that ED officials were guilty of criminal trespass and intent to outrage a woman’s modesty, claiming that the accused entered a Trinamool Congress party leader’s home without a search warrant. The other two complaints revolved around the assault on ED officials, inferring charges of rioting and assaulting public servants, as per different sections of the Indian Penal Code.