A Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court on Thursday, 14 May ruled that no resident or business owner in West Bengal can be evicted solely on the basis of political affiliation, issuing the directive amid a public interest litigation over alleged post-poll violence following the state's recent assembly election results. The bench also ordered both West Bengal Police and Kolkata Police to take firm action to prevent further incidents of post-poll violence.

The Bench and the Order

The Division Bench, comprising Chief Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Partha Sarathi Sen, passed the order while hearing a PIL that was filed in the wake of alleged violence reported across the state after results of the West Bengal Assembly polls were declared on 4 May. The court directed all parties to file affidavits before the next date of hearing, set five weeks from Thursday. On that date, the bench will decide whether to refer the matter to a five-judge bench — a step taken previously in a similar case arising from post-poll violence after the 2021 West Bengal Assembly elections.

Mamata Banerjee Appears as Counsel

In a notable development, former West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee appeared before the court not as a political figure but as counsel, arguing on behalf of the petitioner. She urged the court to intervene and prevent ongoing violence, contending that no section of society had been spared — particularly those from the minority community, women, and children.

'The police are not taking any action. If the court allows, I will mention these allegations in an additional affidavit. Save the people of the state. This is not a ‘bulldozer’ state. This is West Bengal. Please save the people of the state,' Banerjee argued before the bench.

State Government Pushes Back

State government counsel Dhiraj Trivedi countered Banerjee's submissions, describing her allegations as baseless. He argued that the petition cited no specific instances of post-poll violence and did not name individual complainants, making it difficult for the court to issue an interim order. 'No specific instances of post-poll violence have been cited in the petition. The petitioner is claiming that over 2,000 complaints of post-poll violence have surfaced. But no instance has been cited. The details of the complainants have also not been mentioned,' Trivedi said. He further argued that since the 2021 post-poll violence case was heard by a five-judge bench, it would be premature to pass an interim order without specific instances being placed on record.

Historical Context and What Comes Next

Post-poll violence in West Bengal has been a recurring and deeply contested issue. After the 2021 assembly elections, the Calcutta High Court constituted a special five-judge bench to examine similar allegations, and the National Human Rights Commission was also directed to investigate. The current case follows a familiar pattern — a PIL, competing claims, and the court navigating between urgency and evidentiary thresholds. The matter's referral to a larger bench, if ordered five weeks hence, would signal that the court views the allegations as requiring deeper constitutional scrutiny. All parties must now submit affidavits, and the strength of those submissions will determine the case's trajectory.