Calcutta High Court Weekly Round-Up 26th February-03rd March, 2024

The Calcutta High Court has recently held that it is impermissible and violative of the Right to Equality under Article 14 of the Constitution, to differentiate between contractual employees and permanent employees for the purpose of extending maternity leave.

A single bench of Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury held:

On the question of a woman's right to child birth and maternity leave no differentiation is permissible between regular and contractual employees of the respondent no.2. Denial of grant of maternity leave to the petitioner constitutes a discriminatory would tantamount to compel an employee to work during her advanced pregnancy, notwithstanding the same may ultimately endanger both her and her foetus. If the same is permitted, the object of social justice would stand deviated.

[Arbitration & Conciliation Act] S.29A Preserves Arbitral Efficacy, Guards Against Those Who Put Making Of Award On Back-Burner: Calcutta HC

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 57

Case: Praxair India Pvt. Ltd. v Steel Authority of India Ltd

The Calcutta High Court has recently held that Section 29 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, ensures that the arbitral tribunal acts in consonance with the stakeholders to ensure that an award is made within the prescribed timelines.

A single bench of Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya held that in the present case, the arbitrator had informed the parties about the prescribed time for declaration of the award, and rejected the respondents contention that arbitration had to commence de novo due to expiration of mandate under Section 29A.

Calcutta High Court Allows Premature Release Of Prisoner Incarcerated For 23 Yrs, Says Refusal Would Amount To 'Social Crime'

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 58

Case: Afzal Khan @ Fazo and another v State of West Bengal and others

The Calcutta High Court has recently ordered the release of a prisoner who had been incarcerated for more than 23 years upon being convicted of kidnapping a minor and being part of organized crime.

Upon noting the reformed state of the prisoner after his prolonged incarceration, a single bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharya held:

What the petitioner no. 1 did in his 20's at the time of his conviction cannot be sufficient basis for assuming what he will do after his release, more so, since an alternative source of income by agriculture has been clearly portrayed. Our society cannot cast a double stigma on the petitioner no. 1 by punishing him again in refusing premature release and refusing him an opportunity to reintegrate in main-stream society. Such refusal, if comes about, will also be a social crime against the petitioner no. 1 and cannot be approved by a court of law.

High Court Allows BJP To Hold Protest Against Unrest In Sandeshkhali, Sets Aside Kolkata Police's Order

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 59

Case: Pranoy Roy v State of West Bengal

The Calcutta High Court has allowed a plea moved by the office secretary of the West Bengal wing of the Bharatiya Janata Party to hold a protest against the unrest that has recently unfolded in Bengal's Sandeshkhali on 28th and 29th February 2024.

A single bench of Justice Kausik Chanda imposed certain conditions in allowing the plea and capped the attendance at a maximum of 150 people. It held:

Needless to mention that right to assemble peaceably, freedom to speech and expression are guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution of India. Such rights, however, may be subject to reasonable restrictions imposed by the State. The number of demonstrators should be restricted within 150. The demonstrations shall be conducted between 10 a.m. to 6 p.m.

The Calcutta High Court's Circuit Bench at Port Blair has recently held that referring to an unknown lady as "darling" would be a criminal offence under Sections 354A and 509 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

A single bench of Justice Jay Sengupta upheld the conviction of the accused who had referred to a lady constable as 'darling' in an inebriated condition. It said:

Addressing an unknown lady, whether a police constable or not, on the street by a man, drunken or nor, with the word “darling” is patently offensive and the word used essentially a sexually coloured remark. using such expression to an unacquainted lady cannot but be an act intended to insult the modesty of the addressee. At least as of now, the prevailing standards in our society are not such that a man on the street can gleefully be permitted to use such expression in respect of unsuspecting, unacquainted women.