Kolkata, 01 September (H.S.): The Calcutta High Court has questioned the motive behind a public interest litigation (PIL) filed over a remark made by West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee at a rally in Dharmatala on June 2.

The controversy arose after Banerjee made a statement during a post-election gathering. Although she did not name anyone directly, some interpreted her remarks as an apparent reference to the killing of Bangladeshi youth leader Osman Hadi. A petitioner, Abhratanu Sarkar, recently approached the High Court with a PIL over the statement.

The matter came up for hearing on Tuesday before a division bench headed by Acting Chief Justice Tapobrata Chakraborty. Questioning the maintainability and purpose of the PIL, the Acting Chief Justice observed, “Does the court have to hear whatever anyone says? Why should this be entertained as a public interest litigation?”

The court also expressed displeasure over what it described as the growing use of PILs as a “tool” or “weapon”.

PILs are generally filed in matters that are considered to have a significant impact on a large section of the public. The Supreme Court has also expressed concern at various times over the increasing number of PILs and has reprimanded petitioners in several cases.

During Tuesday’s hearing, the bench also referred to an earlier case involving late actor and Trinamool Congress MP Tapas Pal. The Acting Chief Justice observed that the court had earlier dealt with a case in which questions were raised over police inaction following allegations of inflammatory remarks by Pal. The same judge had been part of the division bench that heard that matter.

Appearing for the petitioner, the lawyer argued that the Chief Minister’s statement could not be treated merely as a case of ordinary hate speech or an offensive remark.

“The statement is not limited to ordinary hate speech. It directly involves questions of national security and sovereignty and could have serious consequences,” the lawyer submitted.

Representing the Trinamool Congress, senior advocate Kalyan Banerjee challenged the petitioner’s contention. He argued that the petitioner appeared to fear that the statement could trigger an attack in Bangladesh.

“But if something happens in Bangladesh, how will security in India be affected?” Banerjee questioned. He also argued that the petitioner had failed to provide any clear explanation as to how the Official Secrets Act had been violated.

Appearing for the police, advocate Rajdeep Majumdar told the court that an investigation had found that the petitioner himself was not present at the location where the Chief Minister made the remarks. The police also stated that no criminal incident had taken place at the venue.

The court has fixed September 14 for the next hearing of the case.

Speaking while sitting on a dharna at Y-Channel, Banerjee said that the state’s Special Task Force (STF) had arrested a “big killer” from Bangladesh who had been linked to considerable unrest in the neighbouring country.

She said the person had subsequently entered Bengal through Meghalaya and was arrested by the West Bengal STF, calling the arrest a credit to the state police.

Banerjee further said that the Union Home Minister had personally contacted her and asked her to ensure that the matter was not disclosed publicly in the interest of the country.

She refrained from naming the person, saying that revealing the identity could create unrest in Bangladesh. She also claimed that she knew details of the case and the names of those allegedly involved, but would not disclose them in the interest of the country.

---------------

Hindusthan Samachar / Satya Prakash Singh