- (1.) An unsavoury incident of not too distant origin resulting in the personal liberties of two mature and elderly individuals of some standing in society being invaded, has engaged my attention in course of hearing of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution at the instance of the hapless losers of liberty. What the two petitioners may have conceived of in humour, turned out to be horror for them; they were put behind bars for having rubbed the high and mighty the wrong way. The alacrity with which the petitioners were arrested, which the given circumstances did not call for, took the intellectual fraternity by utter surprise. The incident was sort of a first of its kind in the State, in the aftermath whereof it seemed that anybody not toeing the line of and/or voicing dissent with the Government and/or those belonging to the ruling dispensation would have his voice stifled. Fortunately for the petitioners, it was not that every authority in the State was in slumber; at least, there was one statutory body that put its foot down and meant business. The present writ petition has been triggered by reason of the said statutory authority and the State Government having disagreed in principle and precept in their respective view of the incident in question.
(2.) The genesis of the incident is a cartoon featuring the Hon'ble Chief Minister of this State and two Hon'ble Central ministers (one was in charge of the railway ministry at the relevant time and the other was his immediate predecessor-inoffice). For forwarding such cartoon via e-mail and circulating its print-out, the petitioners were arrested by the police personnel attached to Purba Jadavpur Police Station (hereafter PJPS) in the dead of night on April 12/13, 2012 (there is some dispute regarding the exact date of arrest, which shall be referred to later). Incidentally, the first petitioner (hereafter P-1) who happens to be in his fifties, is a professor in Chemistry employed by Jadavpur University, whereas the second petitioner (hereafter P-2) is a septuagenarian engineer who, prior to his superannuation, was an employee of the State Government. The incident on being highlighted in the print and the electronic media sparked off serious debates in the minds of the people about the role of the police and the rights of an individual in a democratic society; consequently, the sixth respondent, i.e. the West Bengal Human Rights Commission (hereafter the WBHRC) considered the gravity of the allegations and its fall out and by its order dated April 16, 2012 took suo motu cognizance of the matter. Notice was issued to the Commissioner of Police, Kolkata, the third respondent (hereafter R-3) with direction to cause an enquiry by a senior responsible officer. An Additional Commissioner of Police (hereafter the ACP) was entrusted to conduct enquiry by R-3. The report of enquiry prepared by the ACP dated May 22, 2012 was forwarded to the WBHRC by R-3 by his forwarding letter of even date, whereupon the WBHRC considered it proper to call upon R-3 and the ACP to attend its office for recording their statements. Their statements were recorded on July 5, 2012; thereafter, the Additional Officer-in-Charge of PJPS, the fifth respondent (hereafter R-5), who registered the First Information Report (hereafter the FIR) against the petitioners was directed to appear on July 17, 2012 and make his statement under section 16 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 (hereafter the 1993 Act). On consideration of the recorded statement of R-5, the WBHRC considered it proper to direct a Sub-Inspector of Police attached to PJPS, the fourth respondent (hereafter R-4) to appear on July 31, 2012 for examination under section 16 of the 1993 Act. R-4 did appear and place his version. Ultimately, upon consideration of the report(s) that were filed by the police administration and the recorded statements of the concerned police officials, the WBHRC on August 13, 2012 arrived at the finding that the petitioners were deprived of liberty by reason of unlawful arrests and their human rights had indeed been violated; consequently, it recommended (i) initiation of departmental proceedings against R-5 and R-4; and (ii) payment of compensation of Rs.50,000/- to each of the petitioners by the State. The State Government declined to accept the report/recommendation of the WBHRC, vide letter dated May 3, 2013 of the Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Home (hereafter the Addl. C.S.) wherein it was observed that there was no violation of human rights warranting payment of monetary compensation to the petitioners and that departmental action against R-5 and R-4 is also not warranted. The WBHRC, in turn, in its observation dated May 6, 2013 expressed surprise that the State Government was supporting the illegal action of the police on the basis of a so called convention having no legal sanction, and did not accept the reasons given in the said letter.
(3.) Feeling aggrieved by the refusal of the State Government to accept the report of inquiry and to implement the recommendations of the WBHRC, the instant writ petition was presented on November 7, 2013 seeking, inter alia, the following relief: "a. A writ of declaration declaring that the impugned act of the erring police officer including the action of the top of the administration was in violation of the Article 19 (1)(a) and Article 21 of the Constitution of India and further directing respondent authorities to ensure that such instance do not occur again. b. Issue a Writ and/or in the nature of Mandamus by directing the State of West Bengal to forth with implement the said recommendations dated August 13, 2012 of the Human Rights Commission.";