The Calcutta High Court observed in its judgment on post-poll violence in the State of West Bengal that the ruling government chosen by the majority cannot act in a discriminatory manner to suppress the minority. Three separate but concurring judgments were delivered by a Bench of Acting judge Rajesh Bindal and Justices IP Mukerji, Harish Tandon, Soumen Sen, and Subrata Talukdar on a batch of pleas highlighting the gruesome violence that occurred within the State after Mamata Banerjee led All India Trinamool Congress had secured a thumping victory within the State. The Court called for a search by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and Special Investigation Team into cases of murder and crimes against women that happened during post-poll violence in West Bengal.
In the case of Susmita Saha Dutta v. Union of India, In an emerging modern democracy, the essential right of the people in exercising their voting rights and selecting the candidate is eminently ubiquitary (sic).
The Court held that the constitution seeks to realize equality through the protection of a celebration of neutral government officials, the binding legal obligations on the administration, and the independence of the judiciary. It further said that the problem arises when the neutrality of government officials is compromised and when the state machinery fails to behave and perform honestly, fairly, and impartially. The Court accepted the Election Commission's argument that the State is liable for the maintenance of law and order even during the election process. The court held that the very fact-finding committee had transgressed its limits and therefore the remarks tabled and proposals made were uncalled. While pertaining to the violence within the state, the court opined that if a criminal offense is suspected to possess been committed, it's the duty of the State to research into it, apprehend the offender and prosecute him.
Justice Harish Tandon in his opinion held that any violation during the poll or after and therefore the partisan attitude of the chosen government offends the essential fabric of the constitution and thus the rights guaranteed therein. The Court said that that it cannot be a mute spectator or remain apathetic to the voices of aggrieved persons but must rise to the occasion to guard such right Justice Soumen Sen in his opinion said that during a democracy the voice of dissent has got to be heard and revered. Justice Sen discussed the role of the State while pertaining to Nani Palkhivala's book - India's Priceless Heritage.
The role of the State has been beautifully captured within the following words by one of the most eminent jurists of India Nani Palkhivala in his book “India’s Priceless Heritage”: Justice Sen in his concurring judgment said that failure to conduct a fair investigation or an attempt to shield culprits has "undermined the prestige, honesty, impartiality, and dignity of institutions created and entrusted for maintaining law and order and ensure safety and security of citizens."With regard to the fair investigation, the Court said that investigation should be judicious, fair, transparent, and expeditious to form sure compliance to the essential rule of law. it is not only the responsibility of the investigating agency but also that of the Courts to make sure that investigation is fair and doesn't in any way hamper the liberty of a private except in accordance with the law.