Introduction:
In a recent legal development, the Calcutta High Court addressed serious allegations concerning the detention and alleged custodial torture of three female college students. The case, filed under WPA/5591/2025, involves petitioners Sushrita Saren and others against the State of West Bengal and its officials. The incident has raised significant concerns about police conduct and the protection of fundamental rights.
Background of the Incident:
The petitioners, affiliated with left-leaning student organizations, were participating in a protest outside their college in Paschim Medinipur district, expressing dissent over the state’s education policies. During this demonstration, they were detained by officers from the Medinipur All-Women Police Station. The students allege that their detention lasted from 10 a.m. to 2 a.m. the following day, during which they were subjected to severe physical and verbal abuse, including caste-based derogatory remarks. Medical reports submitted to the court indicate multiple injuries consistent with their allegations.
Petitioners’ Arguments:
Represented by their counsel, the petitioners presented a harrowing account of their ordeal. They claimed that while in custody, they were beaten with sticks, forced to stand for prolonged periods, and coerced into assaulting each other. Additionally, they were denied necessities such as water and access to sanitary facilities. Their counsel emphasized that these actions violated numerous Supreme Court judgments and guidelines issued by the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) regarding the treatment of individuals in custody. The petitioners also highlighted the lack of formal charges or documentation justifying their detention, questioning the legal basis for their arrest. Furthermore, they reported difficulties in obtaining medical treatment locally, necessitating travel to Kolkata for proper medical documentation and to file their complaint. They urged the court to scrutinize CCTV footage from the police station and other relevant evidence to substantiate their claims.
Respondent’s Arguments:
Counsel for the State refuted the allegations of custodial torture, asserting that the students were detained due to their involvement in a disruptive protest. The State’s counsel argued that the detention was lawful and that the claims of torture were unfounded. They requested the court to allow the State an opportunity to contest the allegations on their merits, indicating that the medical reports did not corroborate the petitioners’ claims of physical abuse. The State also emphasized that the detention was a necessary response to maintain public order during the protest.
Court’s Observations and Judgment:
Presiding over the case, Justice Tirthankar Ghosh expressed profound concern regarding the actions of the police. He questioned the legal provisions under which the students were detained, highlighting a troubling lack of clarity and adherence to due process. Justice Ghosh remarked on the alarming nature of the situation, especially given that a senior police officer of the rank of Sub-Divisional Police Officer (SDPO) was unable to provide satisfactory answers regarding the legal basis for the detention. He emphasized that while protests, even those that become unruly, are common in a democratic society, the police must operate within the confines of the law when responding to such events.
In light of the serious allegations and the apparent procedural lapses, the court directed Inspector General (IG) Muralidhar Sharma to conduct a thorough investigation into the incident. The IG was instructed to examine the CCTV footage from the Medinipur All Women Police Station and review all available digital materials related to the case. The court mandated that a comprehensive report be submitted by March 25, detailing the findings of the investigation. This directive underscores the court’s commitment to ensuring accountability and upholding the fundamental rights of individuals, especially concerning allegations of custodial misconduct.
Conclusion:
The Calcutta High Court’s proactive stance in ordering an independent investigation reflects its dedication to safeguarding citizens’ rights and maintaining the rule of law. This case serves as a critical reminder of the importance of lawful conduct by law enforcement agencies and the judiciary’s role in addressing grievances related to potential abuses of power. The outcome of the investigation will be pivotal in determining the veracity of the allegations and ensuring that justice is served for all parties involved.