The Calcutta High Court has taken suo motu cognisance of incidents involving an advocate being attacked inside court premises and subsequent strikes by lawyers at two courts in West Bengal. A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Ravindra Vithalrao Ghuge and Justice Om Narayan Rai passed directions on October 7, 2026, while continuing proceedings in the suo motu PIL.
Background
The proceedings began after the Court was informed on September 23 that advocate Sayan Banerjee was attacked after appearing in a criminal proceeding before the Baruipur Court. According to the information placed before the Court, the incident occurred after the proceeding had ended and while the advocate remained within the court premises. Unknown persons allegedly pelted eggs at him and raised slogans asking him to leave.
The High Court subsequently called for a report from the Superintendent of Police, South 24 Parganas. After receiving the report dated September 24, the Court directed that the matter be registered as a suo motu PIL. Senior Advocate Saikat Banerjee was appointed as Amicus Curiae to assist the Court.
During the latest hearing, the Court was informed that further untoward incidents had allegedly occurred within the premises of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court at Kolkata and at the Chandannagar court in Hooghly district. Lawyers at both courts had also commenced a strike.
The Bench expressed concern over the situation and asked Bar Council of West Bengal member Ajay Chaubey to make efforts to persuade the concerned Bar Associations to call off the strike.
The Court observed:
“We have requested him to make a serious effort and approach the concerned office bearers of the Bar Associations at the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kolkata and the Court at Chandannagar, in order to convince them that the strike should be called off forthwith as it is in nobody’s interest and would actually be counter productive since several litigants would be losing opportunities to have their cases heard and decided on the scheduled dates, inasmuch as, adjournment of matters would result in causing grave hardships to every litigants.”
The State’s Additional Advocates General informed the Court that they would communicate with the concerned authorities regarding strengthening security at courts. The Bench also directed that CCTV footage relating to the Baruipur incident be preserved, noting that the police report indicated an unknown person was seen throwing an object in the footage.
The High Court issued notices to the proposed respondents and fixed the matter for December 11, 2026. However, the case was also listed urgently on October 12, 2026, specifically to enable the Court to receive information regarding withdrawal of the strikes at the two courts.
The suo motu proceedings were accordingly continued with directions concerning court security, preservation of CCTV footage and efforts to end the strikes.
