Ranajit Mondal vs State of West Bengal

The Calcutta High Court ruled in this case that it has been emphasized recently that the government must respond sternly to a citizen or member of their family who engages in a social boycott. While considering a plea claiming that a man was subject to a social boycott by the people in his community because he objected to an illegally built temple in front of his property, Justice Jay Sengupta made the observation.

“Any social boycott of a citizen or his family member has to be dealt with strictly by the administration. This has no place in a civilised society,” Justice Sengupta said in the order dated December 27. 

The Court further remarked that if any of the parties want to establish their rights with respect to the property in question, they can do so before the civil court. None of the parties have any right to take the law into their own hands, it added.

The Court was told that the petitioner owns a property, but certain individuals (respondents) were disturbing his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same.

The petitioner had filed a civil suit against them before the civil court, leading to the passing of an injunction order against the respondents.

However, the High Court was told that private respondents kept violating the interim injunction and, along with other locals, started socially boycotting the petitioner.

The State counsel told the Court that while a civil dispute is pending between the parties, the authorities have initiated proceedings under Section 107 (Security for keeping the peace) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) to ensure peace in the area.

Taking note of the injunction order against the private respondents, the Court ordered the police to keep a sharp vigil in the area to ensure that no breach of peace takes place and that the civil court’s order is not violated.

“Surveillance shall include frequent visits to the area by the police patrol,” it added, while disposing of the plea.