6 15.01.2026 Ct-5 P.A./A.P WPA No. 736 of 2026 Sankar Ghosh Vs. The State of W.B. & Ors. Mr. Billwadal Bhattacharyya, Sr. Adv. Mr. Tarunjyoti Tewari, Adv. Mr. Anish Kumar Mukherjee, Adv. Mr. Suryaneel Das, Adv. Mr. Kaustav Bagchi, Adv. Ms. Megha Dutta, Adv. Mr. Tamoghna Pramanick, Adv. … for the petitioner. Mr. Kishore Dutta, Ld. AG Mr. Swapan Banerjee, Adv. Ms. Sumita Shaw, Adv. Mr. Soumen Chatterjee, Adv. Mr. D.N. Banerjee, Adv. Mr. M.K. Sadhu, Adv. …. for the State. The petitioner who is an elected member of the Legislative Assembly and represents a particular political dispensation seeks to organize a peaceful sit-in demonstration in front of Nabanna on 16th January, 2026 from 10:00 A.M. to 4:00 P.M. under the leadership of the Hon’ble leader-of-opposition. 50 members of the Legislative Assembly shall participate in the said demonstration. The petitioner, by a letter issued on 10th January, 2026, sought permission for the same from the police authority. Such permission was denied by the 2 police authority by a letter issued on 12th January, 2026 on four fold grounds which are as follows:- “1) Nabanna, being the State Secretariat, houses the offices of several constitutional and other high dignitaries. The area is a high-security zone and remains under enhanced security protocols throughout the year. It is also a very busy area and does not have adequate space to hold any political meeting or demonstration. No political meeting / demonstration / procession is permitted in the vicinity of Nabanna. In earlier instances too, whenever organisations have sought permission to hold demonstrations near Nabanna, such permissions have not been granted, and the organisations have instead been advised to hold their programmes at alternative locations such as Mandirtala Bus Stand/under Bankim Setu Flyover. When the same issue cropped up before the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta on earlier occasions, the above contention of the State Police was considered and 3 accepted by the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta. On previous occasions, the Hon'ble High Court passed orders to the effect that demonstrations and/or meetings are not permitted in and around the Nabanna area. Instead, the Hon'ble Court has allowed such demonstrations / meetings to be held at alternative location i.e Mandirtala Bus Stand, subject to certain conditions, vide the ordersheet with respect to WPA 26613 of 2024 dated 08.11.2024 and WPA 29973 of 2024 with CAN 1 of 2024 dated 20.12.2024. 2) In view of the Ganga Sagar Mela on 14.01.2026, 15.01.2026, and 16.01.2026, thousands of pilgrims will be moving towards and returning from Kakdwip by availing trains, buses. ferries, etc., through Howrah Railway Station, Howrah Maidan, Kona Expressway, and Vidyasagar Setu. Any meeting/ demonstration or procession during the said period is likely to obstruct the smooth movement of pilgrims and may pose a serious threat to public safety. 4 3) Provisions of section 163 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 have been promulgated in the area around Nabanna and remain in force throughout the year. 4) Nabanna is a very busy area and allowing any demonstration in that place will disrupt normal traffic flow and also cause serious inconvenience to school students, office goers and the general public.” Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the demonstration is intended to be held by none other than elected members of the Legislative Assembly with the object of protesting against the alleged interference with lawful investigation and misuse of State machinery by the Hon’ble Chief Minister of West Bengal accompanied by other police officials and high-ranking bureaucrats of the State administration on 8th January, 2026. Placing reliance on the authorities in Union of India v/s. Association for Democratic Reforms and Another reported in (2002) 5 Supreme Court Cases 294 and Himat Lal K. Shah v/s. Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad and Another reported in (1973) 1 Supreme Court Cases 227, learned counsel submits that the MLA’s are public servants and also, freedom of assembly and public meetings in open spaces and public streets 5 are essential elements of a democratic system and form part of the tradition of our national life. Learned counsel also refers to orders of this Court wherein permission was granted to hold meeting at particular locations including sit-in demonstration near Raj Bhavan (now renamed as Lok Bhavan). Vehemently opposing the said prayer, learned counsel for the State submits that Nabanna area is a high-security zone and in view of a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) issued by the Commissioner of Police, Howrah on 9th September, 2025, public meetings have been allowed at Mandirtala bus stand, under Bankim Setu flyover and Santragachi bus stand which are close to Nabanna and outside the restriction zone under Section 163 of the BNSS. Learned counsel refers to several orders passed by Co-ordinate Benches of this Court wherein such permission was refused by the Court and permission was granted in the alternative site of Mandirtala bus stand. According to learned counsel, allowing the demonstration near Nabanna shall become a precedent and several people/associations shall seek such permission which shall adversely effect the security of the area. I have considered the rival contention of the parties. 6 There is no quarrel with the proposition of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the authorities referred to by the petitioner. Whether the SOP issued by the Howrah Police Commissionerate has any legal sanction or is pursuant to an administrative or executive order shall be dealt with by the appropriate forum in the event such question arises. In fact, an Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court, in a judgment delivered on 23rd August, 2024 in a Public Interest Litigation being WPA (P) 360 of 2024, has called for affidavits from the respondents therein for framing of guidelines ensuring public peace, safety and convenience regarding any protest/rally/demonstration at Nabanna area or at any place within the State. This Court is informed that the matter is sub judice and guidelines are yet to be framed. It is not unknown that Nabanna being the State Secretariat is a high-security zone and Nabanna bus stand is at a stone’s throw distance from Nabanna, intervened by a road. On earlier occasions, this Court has denied sit-in demonstrations in and around Nabanna and has re-directed the same to Mandirtala bus stand. It is also a fact that the area is within the purview of the order under Section 163 of the BNSS. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the fact that such demonstration was allowed to be held at the Y-channel adjacent to Raj Bhavan (Lok Bhavan) earlier, the said 7 area also being within the purview of Section 163 of the BNSS. The orders passed by the Co-ordinate Bench demonstrate that since such demonstration was earlier held at the said spot by the ruling dispensation, similar permission was granted to the opposition. The petitioner is not entitled to claim parity in irregularities and illegal action/omission if any, does not create a right for others to demand the same illegality or irregularity as a matter of equality. In view of the above, this Court is inclined to hold that the grounds stated by the police authorities in turning down the request of the petitioner appear to be based on cogent reasons. This Court is not inclined to allow the petitioner to hold the sit-in demonstration in front of Nabanna. However, the petitioner is permitted to hold such demonstration at Mandirtala bus stand on 16th January, 2026 from 10:00 A.M. to 4:00 P.M. subject to the following conditions:- i. The MLA’s participating in the demonstration shall be strictly restricted to 50. ii. Stage, if any, to be erected for the demonstration should not be more than 12 feet by 15 feet. 8 iii. The demonstration shall not cause any obstruction to the public at large or free flow of traffic. iv. No inciteful speech or abusive language shall be used in the demonstration. v. No microphone shall be used in the demonstration as undertaken on behalf of the petitioner. Relevant rules with regard to noise pollution shall be strictly adhered to. vi. The names of at least 10 volunteers alongwith their respective mobile phone numbers be furnished to the police authority at the earliest. These volunteers shall be responsible in the event of any untoward incident in course of demonstration. vii. The police authority shall deploy adequate number of police personnel to ensure that no breach of peace occurs. viii. The participants in the demonstration shall disperse within two hours of completion of demonstration. ix. The place shall be adequately cleaned and restored to its original position within 24 hours of the demonstration. x. The temporary structure, if any, shall also be removed within the said period. 9 With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall however be no order as to costs. Since no affidavit is invited, the allegations contained in the petition are deemed not to have been admitted. All parties shall act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. Urgent certified website copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities. (Suvra Ghosh, J.)