Introduction:

The Calcutta High Court has expressed serious concern over strikes commenced by lawyers at two subordinate courts following reports of alleged untoward incidents involving members of the Bar. A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Ravindra Vithalrao Ghuge and Justice Om Narayan Rai observed that continuation of such strikes would be counterproductive as litigants would lose valuable opportunities to have their cases heard and decided on scheduled dates, while repeated adjournments could cause grave hardship to those awaiting judicial relief.

The observations were made during the hearing of a suo motu public interest litigation initiated by the High Court following an alleged attack on advocate Sayan Banerjee within the premises of the Baruipur court. The incident reportedly occurred after the advocate appeared in a criminal proceeding. Unknown persons were alleged to have pelted eggs at the advocate and raised slogans of “Sayan Banerjee go back”.

The incident prompted the High Court to initially direct the Superintendent of Police, South 24 Parganas, to submit a report concerning the alleged occurrence. The matter was subsequently registered as a suo motu PIL, reflecting the Court’s concern regarding the safety and security of advocates within court premises and the broader functioning of the justice delivery system.

During the proceedings on October 7, Senior Advocate Saikat Banerjee, who had been appointed as amicus curiae, informed the Division Bench that a proposed PIL petition had been prepared, arraying 71 respondents. The proposed respondents included the State Government, police authorities, district administrations, various Bar Associations and Bar Councils. The breadth of the proposed array of parties indicates that the proceedings are intended to examine the issue of security and institutional response to alleged incidents affecting lawyers within court premises.

The Court issued notice to Respondent Nos. 1 to 70, making the matter returnable on December 11, 2026. However, developments at two other subordinate courts led the Bench to take an immediate view of the situation.

Advocate Subhankar Nag informed the Court that further alleged “untoward incidents” had taken place within the precincts of the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kolkata, and at the Chandannagar Court in Hooghly district. More significantly, he informed the Court that lawyers at both courts had commenced strikes in response to those incidents.

The Bench expressed that it was “equally disturbed” by the commencement of strikes at the two court premises. While the Court was conscious of the concerns regarding the safety of advocates, it also emphasised the consequences of shutting down judicial work. Litigants, many of whom may have travelled considerable distances and may have cases listed for hearing on specific dates, could be deprived of an opportunity to have their matters taken up.

The Court consequently sought to balance two competing concerns: the legitimate requirement of ensuring the safety and security of members of the Bar and the equally important need to ensure that courts remain functional and litigants are not deprived of access to justice because of indefinite or prolonged abstention from work.

The Bench requested Ajay Chaubey, an elected member of the West Bengal Bar Council who was present in Court, to approach the office bearers of the concerned Bar Associations and make efforts to persuade them to withdraw the strikes. Chaubey assured the Court that he would be accompanied by other members of the Bar Council while approaching the concerned associations and would inform the Court of the developments.

Although the suo motu PIL was formally made returnable on December 11, the Court directed that the matter be listed again on October 12 in the Urgent Admissions Category. The purpose of the early listing was limited: the Court wanted to ascertain whether the strikes at the two subordinate courts had been withdrawn.

At the same time, the Additional Advocates General appearing for the State assured the Court that they would communicate to the concerned authorities the need to strengthen security arrangements at all courts so that similar incidents could be prevented in the future.

The Court also directed preservation of the CCTV footage concerning the alleged incident at Baruipur. The Bench took note of the report submitted by the Superintendent of Police, Baruipur Police District, which indicated that an unknown person was visible in the CCTV footage throwing an object.

The proceedings thus involve more than a dispute between individual advocates and alleged perpetrators. The High Court is examining an issue that directly concerns the functioning of the justice system itself. Court premises are expected to provide a secure environment for judges, advocates, litigants, witnesses, court staff and other persons involved in judicial proceedings. At the same time, the functioning of courts cannot ordinarily be brought to a standstill because of disputes or incidents occurring within or around their premises.

The ongoing PIL will therefore require the Court to consider how institutional mechanisms can respond effectively to threats against advocates while ensuring that the right of litigants to access justice is not compromised.

Arguments of the Parties:

The proceedings before the Division Bench arose initially from the alleged incident involving advocate Sayan Banerjee at the Baruipur court premises. The incident was brought to the attention of the High Court after Banerjee was allegedly attacked following his appearance in a criminal proceeding. Unknown individuals were alleged to have thrown eggs at him and raised slogans demanding that he leave.

The precise identity and role of the persons allegedly involved remained a matter for investigation. The Court’s initial response was therefore to call for a report from the Superintendent of Police, South 24 Parganas. The matter was subsequently converted into a suo motu PIL, allowing the Court to examine the larger institutional concerns arising from the incident.

The amicus curiae, Senior Advocate Saikat Banerjee, placed before the Court a proposed PIL petition in which 71 respondents had been identified. These included the State Government, police authorities, district administrations, several Bar Associations and Bar Councils. The inclusion of these different institutions reflects the broad nature of the concerns raised before the Court, particularly with respect to the responsibility for ensuring security within court premises.

The Court thereafter issued notice to Respondent Nos. 1 to 70, returnable on December 11, 2026. The proceedings consequently involve multiple stakeholders who may have different responsibilities in relation to the safety and functioning of subordinate courts.

During the hearing, Advocate Subhankar Nag brought further developments to the Bench’s attention. He informed the Court that alleged untoward incidents had subsequently occurred at the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kolkata, as well as at the Chandannagar Court in Hooghly district.

The more immediate concern, however, arose from the fact that advocates at both locations had commenced strikes. The information placed before the Court therefore expanded the issue from security incidents affecting individual lawyers to the consequences of collective abstention from judicial work.

The lawyers’ decision to strike must be understood against the background of the reported incidents. Members of the Bar have legitimate concerns regarding their safety while appearing before courts. An advocate who is allegedly attacked or threatened within the precincts of a court may reasonably expect the authorities responsible for court security and law enforcement to take effective steps.

The circumstances also explain why the Court sought to involve the West Bengal Bar Council. Ajay Chaubey, an elected member of the Bar Council who was present during the hearing, was requested to communicate with the office bearers of the concerned Bar Associations and attempt to persuade them to call off the strikes.

The Court’s request did not amount to disregarding the concerns of the lawyers. Rather, it reflected an attempt to address those concerns through institutional dialogue while preventing the disruption of court proceedings.

Chaubey assured the Bench that he would be accompanied by other members of the Bar Council while approaching the concerned Bar Associations. He further agreed to communicate the developments to the Court. This undertaking provided the Court with an immediate mechanism through which it could monitor whether the strikes continued.

The State respondents also addressed the issue from the perspective of court security. The Additional Advocates General appearing for the State submitted that they would communicate to the concerned authorities the need to strengthen security at all courts.

The State’s response was significant because the alleged incidents had occurred within court premises and had raised questions about the adequacy of existing security arrangements. Strengthening security was therefore presented as a preventive response intended to ensure that advocates and other stakeholders could safely participate in judicial proceedings.

The Court also considered the evidentiary aspect of the original incident. It directed that the CCTV footage relating to the Baruipur occurrence be preserved. The Bench noted that the report submitted by the Superintendent of Police, Baruipur Police District, indicated that an unidentified person could be seen in the footage throwing an object.

The preservation direction is important because CCTV footage may provide contemporaneous evidence regarding what occurred within the court premises. At this stage, however, the Court did not make a final finding regarding the identity of the person shown in the footage or the precise circumstances surrounding the alleged attack.

The Court’s concern about the strikes was grounded in the effect they could have on litigants. Advocates’ abstention from work can result in cases being adjourned even when they have been listed for hearing. In a system already dealing with significant pendency, repeated adjournments can have consequences for individuals who depend upon timely judicial intervention.

The Bench therefore observed that continued strikes would be “counter productive”. It specifically noted that litigants would lose opportunities to have their cases heard and decided on scheduled dates and that adjournments would cause “grave hardships” to them.

The Court was consequently confronted with a delicate institutional balance. On one side was the responsibility of the State and court administration to ensure that lawyers were protected from attacks and that allegations of violence or intimidation were properly investigated. On the other was the need to ensure that the judicial system continued functioning and that litigants did not bear the consequences of a dispute concerning the safety of members of the Bar.

The proceedings also raise a wider issue concerning the relationship between the Bar and the Bench. Courts depend upon advocates for the effective presentation of cases, while advocates depend upon functioning courts to secure legal remedies for their clients. Any prolonged breakdown in this relationship can ultimately affect litigants who have no role in the dispute.

The Court’s approach therefore appears to favour institutional engagement rather than allowing the situation to escalate into prolonged cessation of judicial work. The request made to the Bar Council member to approach the associations indicates that the Court sought to use the existing professional regulatory structure to facilitate a resolution.

At the same time, the State was asked to take concrete steps on security. The two responses were complementary: the Bar was requested to reconsider the strikes, while the authorities were expected to strengthen the physical security of court premises.

The Court’s decision to list the matter urgently on October 12, despite the formal return date being December 11, further demonstrates the immediate nature of the concern. The Court clarified that the urgent listing was specifically intended to ascertain whether the strikes had been withdrawn.

Thus, the proceedings at this stage are focused not on determining the ultimate liability for the alleged incidents but on preventing further disruption and ensuring that appropriate institutional responses are put in place.

Court’s Judgment:

The Calcutta High Court has not delivered a final judgment in the suo motu PIL. The Division Bench of Chief Justice Ravindra Vithalrao Ghuge and Justice Om Narayan Rai has instead passed interim directions concerning the reported incidents, the preservation of evidence, court security and the strikes undertaken by lawyers at two subordinate courts.

The Court’s intervention began with the alleged incident involving advocate Sayan Banerjee at the Baruipur court premises. Following the incident, the Court had directed the Superintendent of Police, South 24 Parganas, to submit a report. The matter was thereafter registered as a suo motu PIL, reflecting the Court’s decision to examine the incident from a wider institutional perspective.

The proposed PIL petition presented by Senior Advocate Saikat Banerjee as amicus curiae arrayed 71 respondents, including government authorities, police officials, district administrations, Bar Associations and Bar Councils. The Court issued notice to Respondent Nos. 1 to 70, with the matter made returnable on December 11, 2026.

However, the Court’s attention was subsequently drawn to developments at two other courts. Advocate Subhankar Nag informed the Bench about alleged untoward incidents at the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kolkata, and Chandannagar Court in Hooghly district. Lawyers at both courts had commenced strikes following those developments.

The Bench expressly stated that it was “equally disturbed” by the commencement of strikes at the two court premises. The expression of concern demonstrates that the Court did not view the strikes as an inconsequential consequence of the reported incidents. Instead, the Court considered them capable of causing significant disruption to the justice delivery process.

The Court observed that continuation of the strikes would be “counter productive”. The Bench explained that litigants whose cases were listed on particular dates would lose the opportunity to have their matters heard and decided. The resulting adjournments, the Court warned, would cause “grave hardships” to litigants.

This observation places the litigant at the centre of the Court’s concern. While the safety of advocates is unquestionably important, the Court emphasised that judicial proceedings ultimately exist to resolve disputes and protect the rights of litigants. When court work stops, it is the litigant who may face the immediate consequences.

A person whose matter is listed for bail, evidence, interim relief, trial or final hearing may have already waited for a considerable period before the case reaches the hearing stage. An adjournment caused by a strike may therefore have consequences extending far beyond the date on which the case was originally listed.

The Court consequently sought a conciliatory and institutional solution. It requested Ajay Chaubey, an elected member of the West Bengal Bar Council who was present in Court, to approach the office bearers of the concerned Bar Associations and make efforts to persuade them to withdraw the strikes.

Chaubey assured the Court that he would be accompanied by members of the Bar Council while approaching the concerned associations. He also agreed to communicate the developments to the Court.

The direction is significant because the Court did not simply issue a command against the lawyers. Instead, it sought to involve the Bar Council in resolving the situation. The approach recognises the professional and institutional role of the Bar Council and the Bar Associations while also emphasising their responsibility towards the continued administration of justice.

The Court simultaneously addressed the security dimension of the dispute. The Additional Advocates General appearing for the State submitted that they would convey to the concerned authorities the need to strengthen security at all courts.

This aspect of the proceedings is important because asking lawyers to resume work without addressing their security concerns could fail to resolve the underlying problem. The Court’s approach therefore involved both sides of the institutional equation: ensuring that lawyers could work safely and ensuring that judicial proceedings remained uninterrupted.

The Court also directed preservation of the CCTV footage relating to the Baruipur incident. The Bench took note of the report submitted by the Superintendent of Police, Baruipur Police District, which indicated that an unidentified person was visible in the CCTV footage throwing an object.

The preservation of the footage ensures that potentially relevant evidence is not lost while the proceedings and investigation continue. At this stage, the Court did not make any final finding about who the unidentified person was, why the object was thrown or whether the act constituted a particular offence.

The direction is consequently one of evidence preservation rather than a determination of guilt.

The Court also directed that, although the PIL was made returnable on December 11, it would be listed earlier, on October 12, in the Urgent Admissions Category. The purpose of this early listing was specifically stated to be the ascertainment of whether the strikes at the two courts had been withdrawn.

This direction demonstrates the Court’s intention to monitor the immediate consequences of the dispute rather than wait until the formal return date. The Court recognised that a delay of several weeks could result in continued disruption to judicial proceedings and further hardship to litigants.

The proceedings also highlight the importance of maintaining court premises as safe and neutral spaces for the administration of justice. Advocates, judges, litigants, witnesses and court employees must be able to enter and function within court premises without fear of intimidation or violence.

At the same time, the Court’s observations make clear that collective cessation of judicial work carries its own serious consequences. A strike by advocates may be undertaken in response to legitimate grievances, but its impact can extend to persons who are not responsible for the alleged incident and who have no ability to control the dispute.

The Court’s emphasis on “grave hardships” to litigants therefore reflects the broader principle that access to justice cannot be allowed to suffer indefinitely because of institutional disputes. The justice system requires both security and continuity.

The Court has not yet finally determined responsibility for the reported incidents at Baruipur, Kolkata or Chandannagar. Nor has it finally adjudicated the adequacy of the security arrangements in the concerned courts. Those questions remain part of the pending proceedings.

The Court’s present directions are accordingly aimed at stabilising the situation. The Bar Council has been requested to engage with the striking Bar Associations, while the State authorities have been asked to consider strengthening security arrangements. Evidence concerning the original incident has also been ordered to be preserved.

The suo motu PIL will now continue, with the matter formally returnable on December 11, 2026, while the immediate issue concerning the continuaton or withdrawal of the strikes was directed to be considered e