Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Priyanka Adhikary vs The State Of West Bengal And Others on 25 July, 2026
Author: Saugata Bhattacharyya
Bench: Saugata Bhattacharyya
Form No. J(2)
Item No. DL/1
RANAJIT- A.R. (CT)
ARPAN - A.R. (CT)
In The High Court at Calcutta
Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
(APPELLATE SIDE)
W.P.A. NO. 18544 OF 2026
PRIYANKA ADHIKARY
Vs.
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND OTHERS
.................
BEFORE: THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SAUGATA BHATTACHARYYA
FOR THE PETITIONER : Mr. Arka Kumar Nag, Adv.
Mr. Subham Das, Adv.
Mr. Ratikanta Pal, Adv.
Ms. Shrobana Sengupta, Adv.
Mr. Kaushik Bandyopadhyay, Adv.
FOR THE STATE : Mr. Surojit Nath Mitra, AG (Via VC)
Mr. Dibyendra Narayan Ray, GP (Via VC)
HEARING CONCLUDED ON : 25.07.2026
JUDGMENT ON : 25.07.2026
SAUGATA BHATTACHARYYA, J.:
1. This writ petition is taken up for consideration pursuant to leave
granted by the Hon’ble Acting Chief Justice permitting petitioner to
move this writ petition in view of urgency, on 25th July, 2026.
Page |2
2. President of West Bengal Trinamool Chhatra Parishad (hereinafter
referred to as “WBTMCP”) has presented this writ petition, inter alia,
seeking permission to hold rally from Padmapukur to Moulali More
today, 25th July, 2026 between 2:00 PM and 6:00 PM which was not
permitted by the concerned police authorities. By e-mail letter dated
24th July, 2026 Joint Commissioner of Police (Headquarters), Kolkata
finally declined to grant permission as sought for by petitioner to hold
rally today, 25th July, 2026 and same is the subject matter of challenge
in this writ petition.
3. Petitioner prays for issuance of mandamus directing the concerned
police authority to permit WBTMCP to convene rally as per their last
communication which was forwarded to the concerned police authority
by e-mail.
4. Mr. Arka Kumar Nag, learned advocate representing petitioner submits
that in consideration of right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) and
Article 19(1)(b) of the Constitution of India petitioner’s organization has
right to organize rally in order to express its solidarity with the
students’ protest which is continuing throughout the country against
NEET paper leak.
5. According to the petitioner, Kolkata police authorities on the pretext of
public safety and security ought not to have rejected application
seeking permission to hold such rally. In this regard, reliance is placed
on the judgment of this Court dated 7 th July, 2026 passed on a writ
Page |3
petition being WPA 15775 of 2026 (Arnab Banerjee and Anr. vs.
The State of West Bengal and Ors.).
6. Mr. Surojit Nath Mitra, learned Advocate General duly assisted by Mr.
Dibyendra Narayan Ray, learned Government Pleader represents State
respondents on virtual mode and has opposed this writ petition
highlighting the present situation as emerged due to widespread protest
at the instance of students and youth of the country on the issue of
NEET paper leak.
7. It is pointed out on behalf of State respondents that even yesterday at
Esplanade being heart of the city, there was a huge gathering of
students and youth of the State which police authorities had to tackle
and according to State respondents, situation may go beyond control at
any point of time if separate rallies are organized by separate political
organizations at this stage.
8. According to State respondents, stand taken by the Joint
Commissioner of Police (Headquarters) as it is reflected from e-mail
communication dated 24th July, 2026 is justified considering existing
circumstances.
9. It is true that right is guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) and Article 19(1)
(b) of the Constitution of India in favour of citizens of the country i.e.
freedom of speech and expression and to assemble peacefully without
arms but such right is subject to reasonable restrictions. A balance has
to be struck in between right of the citizens to hold rally and express
Page |4
their mind vis-Ã -vis right of the administration to regulate such
programme in the interest of all so that all can enjoy the right.
10. It is succinctly observed in paragraph 42 of the judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court reported in (1973) 1 SCC 227 (Himat Lal K. Shah vs.
Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad and Another). Paragraph 42 of
Himat Lal K. Shah (supra) runs infra:
“42. We may make it clear that there is nothing wrong in
requiring previous permission to be obtained before holding
a public meeting on a public street, for the right which flows
from Article 19(1)(b) is not a right to hold a meeting at any
place and time. It is a right which can be regulated in the
interest of all so that all can enjoy the right.”
11. Protests and rallies are being organized throughout the country and it
has also spread to major cities including Kolkata. There was huge
gathering of students and youth of the State yesterday at Esplanade.
Police had a trying time to tackle such protest and to keep normalcy.
Existing circumstances as appear to this Court does not seem to be
absolutely normal, which is a relevant consideration in this matter,
since a separate rally is proposed to be organized by student wing of a
particular political party.
12. In the aftermath of widespread students’ unrest Court does not find it
feasible to permit petitioner to hold rally which may escalate tension
leading to breach of corresponding rights of ordinary citizens of
Kolkata.
Page |5
13. Therefore, Court finds substances in the contents of the e-mail
communication dated 24th July, 2026 made by Joint Commissioner of
Police (Headquarters), inter alia, stating that proposed programme is
not feasible from the standpoint of traffic management, public safety
and security arrangements under the “existing circumstances”.
14. In aforesaid conspectus, specially taking note of the present situation
which has emerged due to wide spread protest of students and youth,
this Court is not inclined to interfere with the e-mail communication
dated 24th July, 2026 issued on behalf of the concerned police
authority.
15. Situation was quite different when Court passed order on 7 th July, 2026
in Arnab Banerjee (supra); agenda of such political programme was
completely different.
16. Hence, writ petition stands dismissed.
17. There shall be no order as to costs.
18. Urgent photostat certified copy of the order, if applied for, be given to
the parties, upon usual undertakings.
(SAUGATA BHATTACHARYYA, J.)
