The Calcutta High Court has demanded clear answers from the West Bengal government and South Calcutta Law College following the gang rape of a law student inside the college campus—an incident that has sparked outrage and exposed glaring holes in institutional vigilance.
A Division Bench comprising Justices Soumen Sen and Smita Das De ordered the State to submit a sealed report detailing the progress of the investigation. “We want it in writing. The FIR has been filed, but what next? We need to see tangible action,” the Court stated firmly.
The Bench issued a separate warning to the media: steer clear of publishing any detail that could reveal the victim’s identity. The message was unequivocal—sensitivity and restraint are non-negotiable.
But it was the questions the Court posed to both the college and the State that exposed the disturbing rot beneath the surface:
- What was a former student—now the primary accused—doing inside the premises after hours?
- Why were staff members lingering on campus late into the evening without legitimate reasons or oversight?
- Where was the college’s basic security setup—CCTV cameras, active monitoring, restricted access?
- Why were earlier threats allegedly made to the victim met with inaction by college authorities and police?
These pointed queries were triggered by a public interest petition filed by advocate Souma Subhra Ray, who sought a CBI investigation into what he called “a brutal act committed within the halls of legal education.” He called it a symptom of “a systemic failure” spanning security, administration, and law enforcement.
Although the petition was found to have procedural issues, the Court permitted Ray to withdraw it and file a revised version. Meanwhile, other PILs demanding an independent probe are already in the pipeline.
Appearing for the State, Senior Advocate Kalyan Bandopadhyay highlighted an additional concern—that media outlets were allegedly circulating images of unrelated women, falsely suggesting one of them was the victim. Justice Smita Das De noted similar instances, reinforcing the Court’s caution to the press.
The Court also directed that the survivor’s identity be protected in every document—judicial or otherwise.
According to available information, the incident occurred on June 25 in the security guard room of the college. The first-year student’s medical examination, conducted at a state-run hospital, reportedly supports her account.
So far, four arrests have been made: Manojit Mishra, Promit Mukherjee, Zaid Ahmed, and the college’s own security guard. Mishra, believed to be connected to the youth wing of the ruling Trinamool Congress, is accused of raping the student while the others allegedly filmed the assault for blackmail.
The Kolkata Police, under growing scrutiny, has handed over the investigation from its Special Investigation Team to the Detective Department.
As the legal process grinds forward, the Court’s intervention has turned this from a single criminal case into a full-blown examination of institutional responsibility. The question now is not only what happened—but why so many failed to prevent it.
