CALCUTTA HIGH COURT WARNS AGAINST POLITICAL SILENCING: JUDGE CHALLENGES POLICE OVER CPM’S DENIED DURGA PUJA BOOK STALL
October 15, 2026
KOLKATA, OCTOBER 15, 2026: The Calcutta High Court has questioned the police over the denial of permission to the Communist Party of India (Marxist), or CPM, to set up a traditional book stall during Durga Puja, warning that the voice of an Opposition political party should not be suppressed. The court’s observations have brought the principles of democratic equality and freedom of political expression into sharp focus amid a dispute over permissions granted for festival stalls along Jessore Road.
Justice Saugata Bhattacharyya made the observations on Wednesday while hearing a petition filed by the CPM challenging the police’s refusal to allow its book stalls. The party alleged that while its request had been denied, the RSS-affiliated Hindu Jagran Manch had been permitted to establish stalls in the same area.
Questioning the apparent disparity, the judge asked why one organisation should be allowed to set up a stall while another was denied permission. He observed that the CPM wanted to sell books, not operate a lottery shop, and asked what justified the restriction.
The judge also stressed that the state should not stifle the voices of other political parties, describing such suppression as contrary to the spirit of democracy.
CPM ALLEGES UNEQUAL TREATMENT
Appearing for the CPM, advocate Samim Ahammed told the court that the party’s Bongaon unit had approached the police and other authorities to obtain permission for its book stall. According to the party’s submission, members of the Hindu Jagran Manch prevented it from setting up the stall on October 6.
The CPM further alleged that the Manch had been allowed to erect a stall in front of the party’s office, while the CPM itself was denied space for its traditional book-selling activity.
The dispute has particular significance for the Left party, which has maintained a long-standing practice of selling Marxist and progressive literature during major festivals. The CPM has argued that its book stalls are an established part of its cultural and political engagement with the public.
The petition has therefore raised questions not only about the allocation of space but also about whether different political organisations are being treated consistently when seeking permission for similar activities.
STATE QUESTIONS THE PERMISSION PROCESS
Representing the state government, Advocate General Surjit Nath Mitra and Additional Advocate General argued that the CPM had approached the Bongaon subdivisional administration but had not sought clearance from the Public Works Department (PWD), which owns the land in question.
The state’s lawyers maintained that the dispute did not concern police inaction or excessive action. They also objected to the matter being heard by Justice Bhattacharyya’s bench and sought its transfer to an appropriate bench.
In response to the state’s argument regarding land ownership and permissions, the judge questioned whether every stall operating along the relevant stretch of Jessore Road had obtained PWD clearance. His question placed the consistency of the permission process at the centre of the proceedings.
The competing submissions have left the court examining both the administrative requirements for setting up stalls and the allegation that the CPM was treated differently from another organisation.
POLICE ASKED TO ACCOUNT FOR STALLS ALONG JESSORE ROAD
Justice Bhattacharyya directed the inspector-in-charge of Bongaon police station to submit a report by Thursday. The report is to specify how many stalls have been established or are being established along the relevant stretch of Jessore Road and whether all of them have obtained PWD clearance.
The direction seeks to establish the facts surrounding the allocation of space and the permissions granted to stall operators. The court is expected to hear the matter again on Thursday.
Meanwhile, the state government has moved the division bench, adding a further procedural dimension to the dispute.
A TEST OF EQUAL TREATMENT IN PUBLIC SPACE
The case has emerged against a wider political backdrop in which the CPM and other Left organisations have sought permission to establish book stalls during Durga Puja. The party has said it has traditionally operated such stalls during festivals for decades, offering Marxist and progressive literature to readers.
The dispute has also attracted attention because the state government and the CPM have publicly disagreed over the role of the party’s book stalls during religious festivals. The present legal proceedings, however, centre on the specific question of permission for stalls along Jessore Road and the circumstances in which the CPM’s application was rejected.
The High Court’s observations underline the need to examine whether administrative rules are being applied consistently, rather than selectively, to different organisations. At this stage, the judge’s remarks are part of the ongoing hearing and do not constitute a final ruling on the merits of the petition.
The police report ordered by the court is expected to provide further information about the number of stalls and the clearances obtained. That evidence may prove important in determining whether the permission process was applied uniformly.
For the CPM, the case concerns its ability to continue a long-established book-selling tradition. For the court, the immediate questions involve the facts behind the denial of permission, the applicable land-clearance requirements and the principle that an Opposition party should not be unfairly denied the opportunity to express itself through lawful public activity.
