On Thursday, in a matter that has sparked widespread legal and institutional concern, the Calcutta High Court examined the progress of the ongoing investigation into the alleged gang rape of a law student on the premises of South Calcutta Law College. The Court, which had earlier taken cognisance of multiple public interest litigations (PILs) filed in relation to the incident, reviewed the case diary and a sealed progress report submitted by the West Bengal government.
The matter stemmed from an alleged gang rape reported on June 25, within the South Calcutta Law College campus. The survivor has accused an alumnus and two senior students of perpetrating the offence. Following her complaint, the Kolkata Police arrested Manojit Mishra (alumnus), Promit Mukherjee, and Zaid Ahmed, along with a campus guard. All four are presently in judicial custody. The case has prompted three PILs seeking judicial scrutiny and intervention, citing procedural lapses and failure of institutional safeguards.
The petitioners have raised several issues regarding the institutional response and state accountability. One petitioner sought a transfer of the investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), alleging that the principal accused has political connections that could compromise the integrity of the probe. Another petitioner prayed for a court-monitored investigation and state-wide measures to ensure safety in educational institutions. Questions were also raised concerning the presence of staff members after college hours and the alleged inaction of the police and college authorities despite prior warnings of threats to the victim.
The division bench, comprising Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Smita Das De, directed that a copy of the sealed progress report be made available to the counsel representing the survivor’s family. However, the bench expressly instructed that the report's contents “not be divulged to anyone.”
Referring to earlier directions issued on July 3, the bench noted that it had ordered the state to produce the investigation’s case diary and file an affidavit detailing the progress of the probe. In addition to this, the Court had sought specific responses from the government to queries raised by one of the petitioners, including: “How a former student was permitted entry into the college premises after official hours in violation of access control protocols,” “How staff members were present on campus long past college hours without any official purpose or administrative supervision,” and “What monitoring or security measures were in place to prevent or detect unauthorised access to the college building?”
The Court also reiterated its direction that the state must respond to these points in the form of a report at the next hearing.
In light of this, the bench directed the state government to file a further report detailing the continued progress of the investigation within four weeks. The matter has been listed for further hearing on July 17.
Source Link
Picture Source :
