Background
The protest, which was intended to be peaceful, escalated into violence, leaving both demonstrators and police officers injured. Lahiri was subsequently arrested, leading his mother to seek his release on bail through the High Court. Justice Amrita Sinha, presiding over the case, granted bail to Lahiri and criticized the state authorities for their handling of the protest. Justice Sinha pointed out that the authorities should have approached the situation with greater sensitivity. Also, added they should rather than attempt to suppress the protest through force. She emphasized that the protests were a form of social upheaval, sparked by the tragic events at RG Kar Hospital. Hence, should have been addressed in a mature manner. The court also noted that the Paschim Banga Chhatra Samaj, the organization under which the protest was organized, is not a registered body, but rather a spontaneous coalition of students disturbed by the RG Kar incident. The judge highlighted that the protest was a reaction to the incident and could not be classified as an organized movement with a clear leadership structure, contrary to the state’s allegations. The state authorities had accused Lahiri of leading an unlawful assembly at the Dorinna Crossing. The protesters had allegedly disrupted traffic and clashed with police. However, the court found that the state had not established Lahiri as the leader of the protest. Hence, his involvement did not justify his arrest. This led to the release of student protestor afterwards.Reference
The court further referenced the Supreme Court’s judgment in the Arnab Goswami case. They had underscored the importance of protecting peaceful protests from indiscriminate police action. Justice Sinha warned against using arrests as a tool to intimidate protesters. Moreover, maintained that peaceful dissent is a fundamental right. The High Court’s decision comes amid broader legal proceedings related to the RG Kar Hospital case. The court had previously transferred the investigation into the rape and murder of the medical student. It was transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), citing concerns over the state police’s handling of the case. The Supreme Court has also taken up the matter suo moto. It has issued directives to safeguard the identity of the victim and address sexual violence against medical professionals.Conclusion
This ruling by the Calcutta High Court marks a critical moment in the ongoing protests in West Bengal. Additionally, it raises important questions about the state’s approach to handling public dissent and the protection of fundamental rights.
ApniLaw AI
Need the case law behind this point?
Ask ApniLaw AI in plain words. Every point of the answer shows the judgment paragraph or Act section behind it, with its page and paragraph number.
