Social boycott of a citizen has no place in civilised society: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court recently stressed that social boycott of a citizen or his family members must be dealt with strictly by the authorities [Ranajit Mondal vs State of West Bengal]..Justice Jay Sengupta made the observation while dealing with a plea alleging that a man was facing social boycott from the locals of his area due to his objection to a temple constructed illegally in front of his property."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 in respect of the property in question, they can to do so before the civil court.None of the parties have any right to take the law in 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 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 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..Advocate Somnath Mukherjee appeared for the Petitioner. Advocate Amritlal Chatterjee represented the State. [Read Judgment]