The Calcutta High Court has declined an urgent hearing on a plea seeking immediate judicial intervention to restore law and order at Jadavpur University amid the ongoing unrest on the campus.

The development comes amid clashes at Jadavpur University between members of the Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP) and students belonging to the Faculty of Engineering and Technology Students' Union (FETSU) during its ongoing annual general meeting. The rival groups have levelled allegations against each other in connection with the unrest on campus.

The plea was mentioned before a Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Tapabrata Chakraborty and Justice Atarup Banerjee, with the lawyer seeking the Court's urgent intervention in view of the prevailing situation at the University.

The lawyer also sought to tag the matter with an existing case concerning Jadavpur University pending before the High Court.

The Court, however, declined to hear the matter urgently and also refused the request to tag the issue with the pending proceedings. The Bench instead asked the lawyer to file a separate case concerning the latest developments at the University.

During the hearing, the lawyer also showed the Court video clips purportedly depicting a fire on the University campus and submitted that the situation required immediate judicial intervention.

The latest developments come against the backdrop of earlier proceedings before the Calcutta High Court concerning law and order and security at Jadavpur University, after a first-year student had earlier committed suicide amid allegations of ragging.

Calcutta High Court judge, Justice Suvra Ghosh had yesterday recused from hearing former TMC minister Sujit Bose's bail plea, after alleging that an advocate for the petitioner had made contact with her private secretary to access the case records in her chambers.

Advocate Mousumi Bhowal, who was appearing as the Advocate-on-Record for Sujit Bose in the bail proceedings before the Calcutta High Court, has placed on record her opposition to the version of events surrounding the controversy that arose after the matter had been reserved for judgment.

She has sought an enquiry to prove her innocence and requested for the CCTV footage of the front room of the judge's chamber to be preserved.

In an affidavit filed before the High Court, Bhowal has categorically denied that she had connived with the Court Officer or made any attempt to obtain access to the case records with an oblique motive.

Bhowal stated that she was engaged as the Advocate-on-Record for Bose in CRM(R) No. 58 of 2026. According to her, after hearing the parties, Justice Suvra Ghosh had reserved the matter for pronouncement of judgment on August 17, 2026. She submits that she was called by the court officer to supply judgments relied on during arguments. 

According to the advocate, on August 18, 2026, at around 2.25 PM, she received a telephone call and WhatsApp message from Advocate Nahid Ahmed, the junior of Senior Advocate Sabyasachi Banerjee, who was also appearing for the petitioner.

Bhowal stated that Ahmed informed her that Shikha Mukherjee, the Court Officer posted in Court Room No. 15 and Personal Secretary to Justice Ghosh, had called her to the courtroom for supplying copies of judgments.

She thereafter went to Court Room No. 15 at around 2.35 PM and met the Court Officer.

Bhowal stated that the Court Officer requested her to accompany her to the Sesquicentenary Building so that she could identify the judgments which were required to be supplied.

The advocate's affidavit states that the Court Officer then took her to the Judges' corridor and the front room of Justice Ghosh's chamber between approximately 2.40 PM and 2.42 PM, where two court staff members were present.

According to Bhowal, the Court Officer asked her to sit on a chair and thereafter asked a court staff member sitting outside the chamber to show the records of the case. "I have not uttered any word," Bhowal stated.

She further stated that the court staff member informed the Court Officer that the case file was with Justice Ghosh and, therefore, could not be shown to her.

"I have immediately left the said place without saying anything," the advocate stated.

Bhowal has specifically rejected any suggestion that she had attempted to enter the chamber of Justice Ghosh or had acted in concert with the Court Officer to access the case file.

"I have never connived with the learned Court Officer to bring out the record of the case with an oblique motive," the affidavit states.

She further asserted, "I have never tried to enter the chamber of Her Ladyship the Hon'ble Justice Suvra Ghosh" during the relevant period.

Bhowal stated that after leaving the area outside the chamber, the Court Officer requested her in the corridor of the Sesquicentenary Building to hand over copies of the judgments which had been referred to by Senior Advocate Sabyasachi Banerjee during the hearing.

She stated that she subsequently supplied two judgments to the Court Officer at Court Room No. 15 at around 3.10 PM.

The judgments, according to the affidavit, were orders delivered by Justice Ghosh in CRM(SB) No. 84 of 2024 on December 16, 2024 and CRM(SB) No. 29 of 2025 on December 19, 2025.

The advocate has also stated that she subsequently learnt from Nahid Ahmed that the Court Officer had called the registered clerk of Senior Advocate Sabyasachi Banerjee on August 18 for the purpose of obtaining copies of the judgments.

The Calcutta High Court's Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri has set aside an order directing the District Magistrate, Darjeeling to convene a meeting and consider measures for preservation and maintenance of relics and articles kept at a Ramakrishna Vedanta Math, after a petitioner alleged that sacred relics associated with Swami Abhedananda were being kept in a neglected and unsafe condition.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Aniruddha Roy and Justice Chaitali Chatterjee (Das) held that the writ petition was not maintainable as the petitioner had failed to show infringement of any fundamental, legal or private right. The Court observed that the allegations, at their highest, concerned the administration of a Trust and could be pursued before an appropriate civil forum.

The writ petitioner described himself as a follower of Ramakrishna Math and Ramakrishna Mission and stated that he frequently visited Maths in and around Siliguri, Jalpaiguri and Darjeeling.

He alleged that the Ramakrishna Vedanta Ashrama in Darjeeling housed sacred relics and other important articles used by Swami Abhedananda, a direct disciple of Sri Ramakrishna. According to the petitioner, these articles and relics were lying in an "absolute negligent and unprofessional manner" and could be destroyed if proper care was not taken.

The petitioner further alleged that the Ashram was often kept under lock and key and that the building had become dilapidated due to lack of maintenance over several years. He claimed that the building could collapse at any time and also alleged that no daily worship was being conducted at the Ashram.

Based on these allegations, the petitioner approached the High Court seeking directions to the State authorities to act upon his representations. Among other reliefs, he sought that the charge of the Ashram be handed over to another similarly situated religious organisation and also sought an order restraining the removal of any articles or relics from the Ashram.

During the proceedings, the Single Bench had directed the District Magistrate to visit the Math and prepare an inventory of the articles.

The petitioner's counsel submitted before the Division Bench that repeated representations had been made to the District Magistrate. Pursuant to the Court's directions, an inventory was prepared on November 30, 2024, recording the articles found at the Ashram. The appellant had participated in the inventory process.

The District Magistrate subsequently convened a meeting in July 2026, in which the appellant was represented. The Single Bench eventually disposed of the writ petition on July 10, 2026, directing the District Magistrate to convene a meeting with representatives of the concerned Math, the Ramakrishna Mission headquarters at Belur and the writ petitioner and to consider appropriate measures for preservation and maintenance of the relics, articles and Math building.

Appearing for the Ashram, Advocate Kallol Basu argued that the writ petition itself was not maintainable.

He submitted that "No right of the writ petitioner has been infringed" so as to give rise to a cause of action in writ jurisdiction. He argued that the case pleaded by the petitioner essentially questioned the administration of the Trust, including maintenance of the Ashram and its valuable articles.

It was further submitted that the entire affair of the Ashram was governed by a Trust which continued to function and had trustees and a Board of Trustees. Therefore, the State administration could not "step into the administration of the Trust."

The petitioner opposed the challenge to maintainability and relied upon the Supreme Court's judgment in Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing Committee v. C.K. Rajan.

He argued that, as a follower of the Ramakrishna Mission, he had the right to ensure that the affairs of the Ashram were properly conducted and that the valuable articles, which possessed "tremendous historical, religious and philosophical value", were protected.

The Division Bench accepted the Ashram's objection to maintainability.

The Court noted that the petitioner had instituted the writ petition as a follower of a particular religious philosophy and follower of the Ramakrishna Mission for protection and maintenance of the Ashram's assets. However, it was undisputed that the Ashram was run and administered under a Trust.

The Bench held: "there is no case made out as to how a fundamental right or a legal right of the petitioner is infringed."

It further observed that "no case is made out that any private right of the petitioner has been infringed."

According to the Court, the allegations could, at the highest, be levelled against the administration of the Trust, for which the petitioner would have appropriate remedies "in the civil domain and not in the constitutional domain."

The Bench added that even if the allegations were accepted for the sake of argument, "the same will be purely civil in nature for which no writ petition shall lie."

The Court further held that the petitioner had not demonstrated any exceptional circumstance warranting State intervention in the management of the Ashram.

"No exceptional case has been made out in the writ petition as to why the State administration should intervene in the affair of a Trust for the management of the Ashram," the Bench observed.

The Division Bench also rejected the argument that the Ashram, by participating in the meeting convened by the District Magistrate, had accepted the maintainability of the writ petition.

It held that mere participation in the meeting pursuant to an interlocutory order "would not operate as estoppel, waiver or acquiescence" and would not prevent the appellant from questioning maintainability at the appellate stage.

The Court also distinguished the Supreme Court's judgment in Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing Committee v. C.K. Rajan, relied upon by the petitioner.

The Bench noted that the Supreme Court judgment arose from a public interest litigation and did not concern infringement of a private right.

The High Court observed that "no right of the writ petitioner has been infringed" and that neither the pleadings disclosed infringement of any religious right nor was a roving enquiry contemplated.

Accordingly, the Court held that the ratio of Guruvayoor Devaswom did not apply to the facts of the present case.

The Bench clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on whether the petitioner otherwise had a right to challenge the administration of the Trust.

"If the writ petitioner feels aggrieved, he may approach before the appropriate jurisdictional forum complaining the administration of the Trust in accordance with law," the Court said.

The Court accordingly held that the writ petition was not maintainable, set aside and quashed the July 10, 2026 order and dismissed the writ petition.

However, the Bench clarified that the Ashram would remain at liberty to seek assistance from the State administration "in the event of any requirement and necessity", with the State administration required to render such assistance in accordance with law.

The appeal was consequently allowed without any order as to costs.

Case: Swami Atmabodhananda @ Subrata Maharaj General Secretary, Ramkrishna Vedanta Math Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.

Case No: MAT 73 OF 2026  

Click here to read order

Calcutta High Court judge Justice Suvra Ghosh has recused herself from hearing a bail application filed by former West Bengal minster Sujit Bose after the Judge alleged that one of the counsel appearing for Bose, along with the Judge's private secretary, attempted to access the case record from the Judge's chamber after the matter had been reserved for judgment.

The matter concerns an application for bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.

The matter was reserved for judgment by Justice Ghosh on August 17, 2026.

In an order dated August 19, the Judge recorded that on August 18, while the Judge was in the courtroom, "one of the learned counsels for the petitioner" along with the Judge's private secretary allegedly went to the chamber and asked the staff present outside the chamber to bring out the record of the matter.

According to the order, the staff refused to produce the record. The counsel and the private secretary allegedly thereafter attempted to enter the chamber and insisted on seeing the record, which was again resisted by the staff.

The Judge took serious exception to the incident, observing that such conduct was "seriously deprecated", particularly since it "smells of an oblique motive".

"In view of such deliberate attempt made by them, this Court finds it appropriate to release the matter," the Judge observed, before recusing from the matter.

The order records that the alleged attempt took place after the matter had already been reserved for judgment.

The bail plea is being contested by the Enforcement Directorate. Senior Advocate Saybasachi Banerjee appeared for the petitioner, while Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju and Additional Solicitor General Dhiraj Trivedi, along with Senior Advocate Zoheb Hussain and other counsel, appeared for the ED.

The Court's decision to release the matter from its consideration means that the bail application will have to be placed before another Bench in accordance with the roster and administrative directions of the High Court.

The order does not adjudicate the merits of Bose's bail plea.

The Judge's observations were made in the context of the alleged attempt to access the judicial record from the chamber while the matter was awaiting judgment.

Click here to read order