Calcutta High Court Relies on State and Central Assurances for Event in Communally Sensitive Murshidabad, Denies Plea for Injunction
In a significant ruling that underscores the judiciary’s reliance on state machinery for maintaining public order, a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court, on Friday, declined to issue an injunction against a planned foundation-stone laying ceremony for a mosque in West Bengal’s Murshidabad district. The event, which has drawn considerable attention due to its proposed architectural inspiration from the historically significant Babri Masjid, is scheduled to proceed on December 6th under a comprehensive security umbrella.
The petition, which sought to halt the ceremony on grounds of potential communal discord, was presented before a Bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Partha Sarathi Sen. The focal point of the legal challenge was not the legality of the construction itself, but the apprehensions surrounding its impact on communal harmony in a region with a recent history of sectarian tension.
The Core of the Petition and Judicial Scrutiny
The litigant, Dr. Abdus Salam Shaikh, approached the judiciary after first raising his concerns with local law enforcement. In a communication dated November 30th to the Superintendent of Police, Dr. Shaikh articulated fears that the nature and timing of the event could act as a catalyst for unrest, thereby threatening the fragile peace in the district. His counsel argued before the High Court that pre-emptive, judicially overseen measures were a necessity to avert any possible breakdown of law and order.
The Calcutta High Court engaged in a detailed examination of the primary grievance, which it identified as pertaining to the “management of law and order and the need to protect life and property.” This framing shifted the judicial inquiry away from the symbolic or political aspects of the event and towards the executive responsibility of ensuring public safety.
State and Central Assurances as the Decisive Factor
The turning point in the proceedings came with the submissions made by the state’s Advocate General, Kishore Datta, and representations from the Central government. Advocate General Datta provided concrete assurances to the Bench, detailing the administration’s heightened state of alertness and the specific, stringent steps initiated to preserve peace before, during, and after the scheduled ceremony. He emphasized that the state government was fully seized of the matter.
Concurrently, the Central government apprised the Court of a substantial and continued security presence in Murshidabad. Notably, 19 companies of Central Armed Police Forces (CAPF), originally deployed in the wake of serious communal disturbances earlier this year, remain stationed in the district. Those prior clashes, which erupted during protests concerning the Waqf (Amendment) Bill, had resulted in tragic loss of life and significant displacement. The continued presence of these central forces formed a critical part of the security calculus presented to the Court.
The Court’s Reasoning and Final Disposition
Weighing the petitioner’s concerns against the detailed security assurances from both tiers of government, the Division Bench exercised judicial restraint. The Calcutta High Court placed explicit reliance on the commitments made by the State of West Bengal and the Union of India. It concluded that, given the robust and proactive measures outlined by the authorities, there was no compelling reason for the judiciary to intervene at this juncture to prohibit the event.
In its disposal of the petition, the Calcutta High Court effectively transferred the onus of maintaining communal tranquility squarely onto the shoulders of the state administration. The ruling implicitly affirmed a constitutional principle: while the judiciary is the guardian of rights and a check on executive excess, the primary and day-to-day responsibility for public order rests with the elected government and its police apparatus. The Court’s decision can be interpreted as a confidence-based mandate, trusting the executive to fulfill its sworn duty while remaining within the broader framework of legal oversight.
The Political and Social Context of the Event
The individual at the center of announcing the ceremony, Humayun Kabir, is the Bharatpur MLA, whose political standing adds a complex layer to the situation. On December 4th, just days before the scheduled event, Kabir was suspended from the Trinamool Congress for alleged “anti-party activities.” Despite this disciplinary action, Kabir has been emphatic that the foundation-laying programme will proceed unimpeded. He has publicly stated that he anticipates a gathering of nearly 40,000 individuals, a figure that underscores the scale of the event and the consequent logistical and security challenges.
The proposed architectural model of the mosque—invoking the memory of the Babri Masjid demolished in Ayodhya in 1992—imbues the ceremony with a potent symbolic charge. This aspect has inevitably drawn parallels and sparked debates in the public discourse, making the event more than a mere local religious gathering and transforming it into a symbol with pan-Indian resonance. It is this symbolic weight that formed the subtext of the petitioner’s fears and necessitates the extraordinary security preparations.
Ground-Level Security Preparations
In response to the judicial green light and the inherent sensitivities, the district administration has initiated a massive security mobilization. Reports from Murshidabad indicate a substantial deployment of state police forces across the key areas of Beldanga, Rejinagar, and surrounding localities. Senior police officials have conducted multiple coordination meetings, including discussions with the event organizer, Humayun Kabir, to meticulously plan for crowd management, traffic diversion, and rapid response mechanisms.
The security blueprint reportedly involves layered barricading, strategic placement of police and CAPF units, intensive patrolling in vulnerable pockets, and constant surveillance. The aim is to create a secure perimeter for the event itself while preventing any provocative activities or clashes in the wider region. The administration’s strategy appears to be one of overwhelming preparedness, designed to deter any attempts to disrupt peace.
Broader Implications and Analysis
This ruling from the Calcutta High Court sets a notable precedent in balancing religious expression with public order concerns. It demonstrates a judiciary that, while vigilant, prefers to defer to the executive’s operational assessments on security matters when credible plans are presented. The decision avoids a prior restraint on a religious activity—which could have raised questions about the freedom of religion—and instead mandates the state to create the conditions where such a right can be exercised safely.
However, the episode also lays bare the ongoing tensions and the delicate social fabric in certain regions. The need for such an extensive security apparatus for a religious foundation ceremony is itself indicative of underlying vulnerabilities. The state government now carries the heavy burden of validating the Court’s trust. Any lapse in security or any outbreak of violence would not only have serious local consequences but would also reflect on the efficacy of the assurances provided to the highest court in the state.
Furthermore, the event and its judicial handling highlight the enduring legacy of historical disputes on contemporary Indian society. The choice of architectural inspiration ensures that the ghost of past conflicts looms over the present, demanding a maturity of response from both the state and civil society. The coming days will be a critical test for the administrative machinery of West Bengal, a examination of its ability to insulate a legally permitted religious event from the pressures of history and politics.
In conclusion, the Calcutta High Court’s decision has allowed a potentially volatile event to proceed, but within a meticulously planned framework of state control. It is a ruling that emphasizes procedure, preparedness, and executive accountability over pre-emptive prohibition. The ultimate outcome, whether it reinforces communal harmony or undermines it, will depend less on the judicial verdict and more on the precision and impartiality with which the vast security apparatus executes its duty on the ground.
Read More:-
One thought on “Calcutta High Court permits Foundation Ceremony for “Babri Mosque” with Stringent Security Provisions”