THE WORLD ANARCHY TOURNAMENT: WHEN THE ARCHITECTS OF DISORDER STRUGGLE TO SAVE THEIR OWN CITADELS

The Game Is Changing — Covert Tactics Exposed, Global Perceptions Transformed, and the Civilised World Preparing for the Decisive Match

The geopolitical landscape of the world is passing through a period of profound uncertainty, where the old rules of domination are being challenged, traditional centres of power are facing unprecedented scrutiny, and the consequences of strategic miscalculations are becoming increasingly difficult to conceal.

In the imaginary World Anarchy Tournament, the joint winners who once appeared confident in their ability to influence events across the globe are now confronted with an uncomfortable question: Can those who have mastered the art of destabilising others preserve the stability of their own citadels?

The irony is striking. Those who once appeared to enjoy the freedom to dictate the course of international affairs are increasingly discovering that the world is neither a permanent playing field for a privileged few nor a chessboard upon which the destiny of independent nations can be decided indefinitely.

Power may provide influence, resources may provide leverage, and covert strategies may offer temporary advantages. But none of these can guarantee permanent supremacy in a world where information travels rapidly, public awareness is expanding, and nations are becoming increasingly conscious of their sovereign rights.

Two Winners, Two Strategies, One Uncertain Future

In this metaphorical tournament, one of the joint winners remains visibly on the field, attempting to preserve its position amid mounting challenges. The other, as the familiar pattern suggests, appears more comfortable operating behind the scenes—calculating moves, assessing opportunities, and attempting to influence the game without necessarily occupying the centre of public attention.

One relies on visible pressure; the other is perceived as preferring strategic manoeuvring away from the spotlight.

Yet both approaches carry risks. Open confrontation can expose vulnerabilities, exhaust resources, and generate resistance. Covert manoeuvring, when suspected or exposed, can undermine credibility, damage relationships, and provoke distrust among those whose cooperation is essential.

The decisive question is not which player possesses the more sophisticated strategy, but which can command lasting legitimacy in an increasingly interconnected world.

For influence without trust is fragile, and power without legitimacy is perpetually vulnerable.

The Citadels of Power Are No Longer Beyond Question

Every citadel, however imposing, rests upon foundations. Those foundations may consist of economic strength, military preparedness, diplomatic relationships, domestic confidence, or the willingness of others to recognise its authority.

When those foundations are neglected, challenged, or weakened by strategic overreach, even the most formidable structure can begin to experience uncertainty.

The contemporary international order demonstrates that no country can assume that its influence will remain uncontested forever. Emerging economies, independent regional powers, technological developments, and changing international partnerships are altering the distribution of influence.

Nations that once depended heavily on established centres of power are increasingly exploring independent choices. They are diversifying partnerships, protecting their strategic interests, and seeking greater freedom to determine their own futures.

This transformation does not necessarily signify the collapse of any particular power. Rather, it signals the end of the assumption that global affairs can be permanently controlled by a handful of dominant players.

The citadels may still stand, but their occupants can no longer presume that the surrounding world will remain unchanged.

The Next Tournament Must Belong to the Civilised World

The next decisive contest should not be another competition in intimidation, manipulation, or the manufacture of instability. It must be a contest of civilisation itself.

And what does civilisation actually mean?

Civilisation is not merely wealth, technological sophistication, military strength, or the ability to influence weaker nations. It is reflected in respect for human dignity, adherence to international law, responsible leadership, peaceful resolution of disputes, and recognition of the sovereignty of others.

A genuinely civilised nation does not confuse domination with leadership. It does not mistake fear for respect or temporary compliance for lasting friendship. Nor does it assume that the advancement of one country must necessarily depend upon the humiliation of another.

The civilised world must win through justice rather than intimidation, cooperation rather than coercion, transparency rather than deception, and the rule of law rather than the rule of anarchy.

The true trophy must represent a more stable international order in which nations can pursue their legitimate interests without being subjected to deliberate destabilisation or arbitrary pressure.

The People Have Begun to Understand the Difference

Public understanding of international affairs is evolving. Citizens increasingly examine official declarations against actual conduct. They question inconsistencies, scrutinise the exercise of power, and demand greater accountability from those who claim to act in the name of democracy, security, or international stability.

The age in which political narratives could remain unquestioned indefinitely is giving way to an environment of greater scrutiny.

Nevertheless, allegations of covert interference or deliberate destabilisation must be judged on credible evidence rather than speculation. Genuine public awareness requires discernment: the ability to distinguish verified facts from propaganda, legitimate criticism from manipulation, and diplomatic competition from unlawful interference.

Civilisation is strengthened not by replacing one unquestioned narrative with another, but by encouraging independent thought, responsible journalism, transparent institutions, and reasoned public debate.

The people must not merely identify the players. They must understand the rules, examine the evidence, and recognise when those rules are being applied selectively.

Cornered Winners and the Anxiety of Uncertainty

In every tournament, the greatest anxiety often emerges when the expected outcome becomes uncertain.

Players who once anticipated an easy victory may become increasingly apprehensive when their strategies encounter resistance, their assumptions are challenged, and their opponents demonstrate an unexpected capacity to adapt.

The metaphorical joint winners of the World Anarchy Tournament may now be discovering that their future cannot be secured merely by repeating the methods that appeared effective in the past.

The international environment has changed. Independent nations are more determined to protect their interests, diplomatic alignments are evolving, and the costs of miscalculation can extend far beyond the immediate battlefield of political competition.

Yet anxiety alone does not establish defeat, just as confidence does not guarantee victory. The outcome will depend on decisions, capabilities, public legitimacy, and the willingness of nations to learn from changing circumstances.

The greatest strategic error is to assume that yesterday's advantages automatically guarantee tomorrow's triumph.

When Covert Tactics Lose Their Advantage

Secrecy has long been a feature of international strategy. Confidential diplomacy, intelligence gathering, and discreet negotiations are not inherently illegitimate. However, covert interference, if established by credible evidence, raises serious questions about sovereignty, accountability, and respect for the political choices of other peoples.

When concealed conduct becomes publicly documented, the consequences can be substantial. Trust may erode, partnerships may weaken, and previously effective methods may become liabilities.

The exposure of a strategy can sometimes be more damaging than the failure of a single operation because it changes how future actions are interpreted.

Once confidence has been undermined, even legitimate initiatives may encounter suspicion. Restoring credibility then requires more than explanations; it requires consistent conduct, transparency where appropriate, and demonstrable respect for established principles.

The world is moving towards a stage where strategic success must be measured not merely by what a power can accomplish in secret, but by what it can defend openly before the judgement of history.

The Decisive Match Is Approaching

Sooner or later, every prolonged contest reaches a moment when accumulated decisions, competing ambitions, and changing circumstances converge.

The decisive match of the metaphorical World Anarchy Tournament will not necessarily be fought on a conventional battlefield. It may unfold through diplomacy, economic resilience, technological innovation, public opinion, institutional credibility, and the collective determination of sovereign nations to protect their independence.

The real victory will belong to those who can demonstrate that strength and restraint are compatible, that national interests can be defended without sacrificing international peace, and that leadership can inspire cooperation without demanding submission.

The civilised world must not imitate the very methods it condemns. It must establish a higher standard—one that rejects political violence, resists destabilisation, respects constitutional government, and places human dignity above geopolitical vanity.

The ultimate objective is not the destruction of another nation's citadel. It is the construction of an international order in which no nation believes that its security requires the deliberate destruction of another's stability.

THE FINAL WHISTLE HAS NOT YET BLOWN

The tournament continues. The players remain on the field, the strategies continue to evolve, and the final outcome remains uncertain.

But one principle must stand above every contest for power: no nation, however influential, can claim an unlimited entitlement to determine the destiny of the world.

The future must not belong to those who excel at manufacturing disorder. It must belong to those who build institutions, uphold justice, protect peace, respect sovereignty, and advance civilisation through responsible action.

Let the next tournament be won by wisdom over manipulation, legitimacy over domination, cooperation over anarchy, and civilisation over the politics of perpetual confrontation.

The greatest trophy will not be the humiliation of the defeated. It will be a world in which nations no longer need to fear that their independence, peace, and prosperity will become instruments in somebody else's game.

JAI HIND! VANDE MATARAM!

Ashok Kumar Singh
Advocate, High Court, Calcutta

 

BHARAT IS NO LONGER A SHUTTLECOCK — A NATION THAT NOW COMPETES FOR THE TROPHY

A New Era of National Confidence, Indigenous Strength and Strategic Self-Reliance

Omnipotent is the Almighty; and with faith in the Divine, confidence in their own capabilities, and an unwavering commitment to the Motherland, the indigenous Bharatiyas are prepared to face any eventuality.

The strength of Bharat lies not merely in its geographical expanse, military capabilities, economic potential, or technological advancement. Its real strength resides in the indomitable spirit of its people, the wisdom of its ancient civilisation, the resilience of its indigenous communities, and the determination of generations who have preserved the nation's identity through countless challenges.

For centuries, Bharat has witnessed changing political circumstances, foreign interventions, economic difficulties, and strategic uncertainties. Yet the civilisational spirit of this ancient land has endured. The nation has repeatedly demonstrated that adversity may test its resolve, but it cannot extinguish the aspirations of a people who believe in their own destiny.

Today, that spirit is increasingly accompanied by a renewed emphasis on self-confidence, indigenous capabilities, national security, technological development, and strategic independence.

Mr. Narendra Modi: Leadership, Direction and National Confidence

Under the leadership of Prime Minister Mr. Narendra Modi, the message of national self-confidence and self-reliance has assumed renewed prominence. His emphasis on Atmanirbhar Bharat has encouraged the country to strengthen domestic manufacturing, develop indigenous technologies, expand infrastructure, promote entrepreneurship, and enhance defence production.

The importance of leadership lies not simply in issuing declarations or projecting national pride. It lies in inspiring citizens to believe that the future of their country must be shaped by their own efforts, their collective discipline, and their willingness to overcome challenges.

A confident nation does not wait indefinitely for external approval. It develops its own capabilities, strengthens its institutions, invests in its youth, and prepares itself to respond to uncertainty with courage and prudence.

The true measure of leadership is whether citizens become more capable, institutions become more resilient, and the nation becomes better equipped to protect its legitimate interests.

Bharat Is No Longer a Shuttlecock

There was a time when the metaphor of a shuttlecock could describe the vulnerability of nations caught between the competing interests of powerful international players—pushed in one direction by one force and pulled in another by its rival.

Bharat must never again be treated as a shuttlecock in somebody else's geopolitical game.

India is a sovereign nation with its own priorities, strategic interests, democratic institutions, and independent voice. It can cooperate with other countries without surrendering its judgement. It can maintain international partnerships without abandoning its autonomy. It can negotiate without compromising its dignity and compete without surrendering its principles.

The world is witnessing the emergence of a more assertive India—one that seeks to participate in shaping international affairs rather than merely responding to decisions made elsewhere.

This does not mean that Bharat is immune to challenges. No nation, however powerful, can claim such immunity. International competition, economic uncertainty, technological disruption, and geopolitical tensions demand constant vigilance. National confidence must therefore be supported by sound policies, institutional accountability, social harmony, and sustained preparation.

The objective is not to become a pawn in another power's strategy, but to become an independent participant capable of influencing the course of events.

We No Longer Merely Watch the Game—We Compete for the Trophy

This is the spirit of a changing Bharat.

We are not content merely to occupy a place on the sidelines while others determine the rules, distribute the rewards, and claim the victories. We aspire to compete in science and technology, manufacturing, space exploration, sports, education, trade, defence preparedness, and global diplomacy.

The trophy represents more than victory over another nation. It symbolises excellence, self-respect, innovation, national achievement, and the fulfilment of collective aspirations.

A nation that wishes to win must prepare its citizens, empower its youth, encourage original thinking, reward merit, strengthen its economy, and invest in the institutions that sustain progress. Patriotism must translate into productive work, responsible citizenship, scientific temper, and a willingness to contribute to the common good.

Our ambition should be to compete with confidence, cooperate with dignity, and succeed through capability rather than confrontation.

Bharat's greatest victory will be achieved when its strength is so deeply rooted in knowledge, innovation, economic resilience, and social unity that no external pressure can easily divert it from its chosen path.

Indigenous Strength and the Spirit of Bharatiyas

The indigenous people and diverse communities of Bharat are integral to the nation's civilisational heritage and future development. Their knowledge, traditions, enterprise, courage, and contributions deserve recognition and meaningful opportunities.

Yet the strength of Bharat cannot be confined to any single community. It flourishes through the collective efforts of all Indians, united by constitutional values, mutual respect, and a shared commitment to the country's progress.

Our diversity must become our strength, not a weakness to be exploited. Our disagreements must be addressed through democratic dialogue, not hostility. Our national aspirations must be pursued through lawful means, not through hatred or intimidation.

A truly strong Bharat is one in which every citizen has the opportunity to contribute, every community is treated with dignity, and every institution works towards a more secure, prosperous, and just society.

The Message to the World

Let the world understand that Bharat seeks neither permanent subordination nor unnecessary confrontation. It seeks respect, fair competition, strategic autonomy, and an equitable place in the international order.

India's progress should be measured not merely by its ability to withstand external pressure, but by its capacity to create opportunities, improve the lives of its citizens, strengthen democratic institutions, and contribute to global peace.

We must remain vigilant without becoming fearful, ambitious without becoming arrogant, and powerful without abandoning responsibility.

Our confidence must arise from preparation. Our pride must be supported by performance. And our national aspirations must be guided by wisdom.

Bharat is no longer content to be a shuttlecock tossed between competing powers. Bharat is preparing to compete, to excel, to lead, and to claim its rightful place among the leading nations of the world.

With faith in the Almighty, confidence in our people, and determination to build a stronger and more self-reliant nation, let us move forward together.

We are not merely spectators of history. We are participants in shaping it. And our ambition is not simply to remain in the game—we aspire to compete for the trophy.

JAI HIND! 🇮🇳

VANDE MATARAM!

Ashok Kumar Singh
Advocate, High Court, Calcutta

 

THE RETURN OF MOB RULE: A PATHETIC DOWNFALL OF THOSE WHO ONCE DOMINATED THE WORLD

There comes a time in the history of nations when the very forces that once exercised absolute domination over others begin to realise that their traditional authority is no longer unquestionable. Countries that have long enjoyed political, economic, military, or strategic supremacy often find it difficult to accept the emergence of independent nations that dare to challenge their authority, question their policies, and assert their sovereign right to determine their own destiny.

Instead of accepting this inevitable transformation of the global order with dignity, wisdom, and diplomatic maturity, certain powerful forces may resort to instability, political manipulation, the encouragement of disorder, and the creation of anarchy in countries that refuse to remain under their influence. When the instruments of legitimate authority fail to secure obedience, the temptation to exploit division, provoke unrest, and weaken emerging centres of power becomes particularly dangerous.

But history teaches us that domination cannot be sustained forever, and no power remains invincible merely because it once commanded unquestioned obedience.

The most disturbing aspect of such conduct is the apparent willingness to undermine the very principles of democracy, stability, and the rule of law that powerful nations often claim to defend. Democracy is not the licence of a privileged few to dictate terms to the rest of the world. It is the collective expression of the people's will, exercised through constitutional institutions, peaceful participation, and respect for the sovereignty of nations.

Mobocracy, however, is democracy's dangerous opposite. It substitutes noise for reason, intimidation for dialogue, violence for lawful dissent, and the will of an uncontrolled crowd for the authority of constitutional institutions. Wherever political interests encourage such disorder, the consequences are borne not by the architects of instability alone, but by ordinary citizens whose peace, security, livelihood, and future are placed at risk.

If the forces of anarchy are used as instruments of geopolitical revenge, let those who encourage such methods confront the consequences of the very disorder they seek to exploit. No nation can reasonably expect to manufacture instability abroad while remaining permanently insulated from the political and moral consequences of its own conduct.

The world is changing. Nations once treated as subordinate are increasingly asserting their independence, strengthening their institutions, expanding their international partnerships, and demanding to be treated as equals. Such a transformation may be uncomfortable for those accustomed to exercising disproportionate influence, but the answer cannot be the deliberate weakening of other societies. The answer must be constructive engagement, mutual respect, fair competition, and peaceful coexistence.

A country's true greatness is not measured merely by its military strength, economic wealth, or capacity to influence weaker nations. It is measured by the wisdom with which it exercises power, the restraint it demonstrates in moments of adversity, and the respect it extends to the sovereignty and dignity of others.

Those who attempt to recover lost influence through chaos may ultimately discover that the world has moved beyond the age when domination could be maintained through fear alone. Power without responsibility becomes arrogance; influence without legitimacy becomes coercion; and ambition without wisdom can culminate in a humiliating decline.

Let mobocracy return to the very doorsteps of those who seek to weaponise it—not as a call for violence or revenge, but as a powerful reminder that no one can indefinitely escape the consequences of encouraging lawlessness and political disorder. The ultimate objective must never be to replace one form of domination with another, but to establish a world order in which sovereign nations coexist with dignity, constitutional democracy prevails over mob rule, and justice stands above the ambitions of powerful interests.

The downfall of an arrogant power is not necessarily the triumph of its adversaries. Sometimes, it is simply history's stern reminder that supremacy is temporary, arrogance is self-defeating, and legitimacy cannot be manufactured through fear.

Pathetic is the downfall of those who, unable to reconcile themselves with a changing world, mistake anarchy for strategy and domination for greatness.

May reason prevail over rage, democracy over mobocracy, sovereignty over coercion, and peace over the politics of destabilisation.

JAI HIND! VANDE MATARAM!

Ashok Kumar Singh
Advocate, High Court, Calcutta

Letter to Bar Association

 

Date: 30^th September’ 2026

To
The Hon’ble President
High Court Bar Association
High Court, Calcutta

 

Subject: Representation seeking protection of my allotted Drawer No. 116 at Room No. 15, High Court Bar Association, from any proposed re-allotment without my consent.

 

Respected Sir,

 

I, Ashok Kumar Singh, Advocate, Enrollment No. F/872/1199/2000, most respectfully submit this representation for your kind consideration and necessary intervention concerning my allotted Drawer bearing No. 116, situated at Room No. 15, High Court Bar Association, High Court, Calcutta.

 

At the outset, I respectfully state that I have had the privilege of being a member of this Esteemed High Court Bar Association since the year 2000, being the year of my enrolment as an Advocate with the Bar Council of West Bengal. Thus, I have been associated with this Hon’ble Bar and its institutional life for approximately twenty-five years.

 

Ever since my enrolment as an Advocate in the year 2000, I have been regularly practising before the High Court at Calcutta and, in the ordinary course of my professional practice, I have been using the facilities and amenities provided by the High Court Bar Association.

 

In due course, a sitting arrangement was allotted to me in Room No. 15 of the High Court Bar Association, along with the corresponding Drawer bearing No. 116. The said drawer was allotted to me upon payment of the requisite charges and in accordance with the prevailing practice and arrangement of the Association.

 

Since such allotment, the said drawer has remained associated with me and has been used by me in connection with my professional practice and requirements as an Advocate.

 

I respectfully submit that, during the period commencing from the year 2020, the unprecedented COVID-19 pandemic caused substantial disruption to the functioning of Courts, Bar Associations and the legal profession as a whole.

 

The High Court, like other institutions, experienced significant restrictions and changes in its functioning. Consequently, my professional engagement and physical appearance at the High Court became considerably less frequent than in the pre-pandemic period.

 

As a natural consequence thereof, my visits to the High Court Bar Association and my physical presence in the Bar became less frequent than they had been earlier.

 

However, I respectfully emphasize that there was never any intention on my part to sever my association with the High Court Bar Association, nor did I ever surrender or relinquish my allotted sitting arrangement or Drawer No. 116.

 

My visits to the Bar Association have continued intermittently, and I continue to remain a member of this Esteemed Association.

 

I further respectfully state that my membership subscription and other applicable dues payable to the High Court Bar Association have been duly paid and are updated in full.

 

There is, therefore, no question of my membership having ceased, having been terminated, or having otherwise become incapable of recognition on account of any outstanding subscription or other financial liability towards the Association.

 

I continue to remain a member of the High Court Bar Association and continue to have the legitimate expectation that the facilities and arrangements allotted to me as a member shall not be disturbed except in accordance with the applicable rules, regulations and established practice of the Association.

 

A few days ago, I came to hear information to the effect that my Drawer bearing No. 116 in Room No. 15 of the High Court Bar Association was likely to be allotted to a Junior Advocate.

 

I respectfully make it clear that, as of the date of this representation, I am not in a position to confirm the correctness of such information, and I do not wish to make any allegation against any particular person.

 

Nevertheless, the information has caused me considerable concern and distress because I have neither surrendered the said drawer nor requested the Association to cancel, withdraw or re-allot the same.

 

I continue to be alive, active in the profession to the extent permitted by my circumstances, and continue to retain my association with the High Court Bar Association. I also continue to use my allotted drawer whenever I visit the Bar.

 

I most respectfully submit that mere reduction in the frequency of my physical visits to the Bar Association, particularly in the extraordinary circumstances following the COVID-19 pandemic, cannot by itself reasonably be treated as an act of surrender or relinquishment of my allotted facility.

 

At no point of time have I submitted any written request, application, declaration or communication to the High Court Bar Association stating that (i) I have surrendered Drawer No. 116; (ii) I have relinquished my right to use the said drawer; (iii) I have consented to cancellation of the allotment; (iv) I have consented to re-allotment of the drawer to any other member; or (v) I have ceased to require the said drawer.

 

On the contrary, I continue to assert my entitlement to the drawer allotted to me, subject, of course, to the rules and regulations governing the High Court Bar Association.

 

I also respectfully bring to your kind notice that, at present, my health is not in the best condition. I am presently suffering from high blood pressure and diabetes, owing to which my physical movements and regular attendance at the High Court premises have, at times, been affected.

 

The occasional absence of a member from the Bar, particularly owing to health circumstances and the extraordinary professional disruption caused by the pandemic, ought not to be construed as abandonment of his membership rights or as an implied surrender of a facility which was duly allotted to him.

 

My reduced physical presence should therefore kindly be considered in the proper perspective.

 

I have now completed approximately twenty-five years of professional association with the legal profession and the High Court Bar.

 

The High Court Bar Association is not merely an administrative body providing physical facilities to Advocates; it represents the institutional fraternity, dignity and professional identity of members of the Bar.

 

An Advocate who has remained associated with the Association for such a long period naturally attaches considerable professional and sentimental value to the sitting arrangement and facilities allotted to him.

 

The drawer allotted to me is not merely a numbered compartment. It forms part of my long-standing professional association with this Hon’ble Bar and has remained connected with my practice as an Advocate since its allotment.

 

I therefore respectfully submit that any proposal to remove or re-allot the same, particularly without notice to me and without obtaining my consent, would cause me considerable hardship and would be deeply hurtful to me as a long-standing member of the Bar.

 

In the circumstances stated above, I most respectfully request your good office to kindly verify whether any proposal, decision or arrangement has been made for re-allotment of Drawer No. 116, Room No. 15, High Court Bar Association, to any other Advocate.

 

If any such proposal is under consideration, I humbly request that the same may kindly be kept in abeyance forthwith, particularly since I have never surrendered the drawer or consented to its re-allotment.

 

I further request that no third-party interest or right may kindly be created in respect of Drawer No. 116 without (a) prior notice to me; (b) giving me an opportunity to place my case before the appropriate authority of the Association; and (c) following the applicable rules, regulations and established procedure of the High Court Bar Association.

 

In view of the above facts and circumstances, I most respectfully request your goodself, as the Hon’ble President of this Esteemed Association, to kindly intervene personally and ensure that my Drawer No. 116, Room No. 15, High Court Bar Association, High Court, Calcutta, is not allotted or transferred to any other Advocate without my prior consent and without following due procedure.

 

I further request that my long-standing membership since the year 2000, my approximately twenty-five years of association with the High Court Bar, my continued membership, the fact that my subscription is fully updated, and my continued intermittent use of the Bar facilities may kindly be taken into consideration.

 

I have always regarded the High Court Bar Association as my professional home and have the highest respect for its office-bearers and its institutional traditions. I am therefore approaching you with the utmost respect and with the bona fide expectation that my grievance will receive your sympathetic and immediate consideration.

 

I reiterate that I have never surrendered Drawer No. 116, nor have I authorised or consented to its allotment to any other person.

 

I therefore humbly request that the dignity, legitimate expectation and long-standing association of a member who has been associated with this Hon’ble Bar since the year 2000 may kindly be protected, and that the existing allotment in my favour may kindly be maintained unless I myself voluntarily surrender the same or the Association, acting strictly in accordance with its applicable rules and procedure, determines otherwise after giving me due notice and opportunity.

 

I shall remain grateful for your kind intervention and appropriate action in the matter.

Thanking you,

 

Yours faithfully,

 

 

Ashok Kumar Singh
Advocate
Enrollment No.: F/872/1199/2000
Member, High Court Bar Association
High Court, Calcutta

Date: 30^th September’ 2026
Place: Kolkata

 

Who can file a PIL?

 

A person who is not personally affected can institute a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) before the High Court, provided the petition genuinely raises an issue of public interest and the petitioner satisfies the requirements of bona fides and sufficient credentials.

For the Calcutta High Court, this position is specifically recognised in the High Court Rules.

1. Who can file a PIL?

Under Rule 56 of the Calcutta High Court Rules relating to Public Interest Litigation, PIL is intended, broadly, for a legal wrong or injury affecting a person or a determinate class of persons who, because of poverty, helplessness, disability, or social/economic disadvantage, are unable to approach the Court themselves. In such circumstances, a member of the public having no personal interest in the subject matter may approach the High Court under Article 226.

Therefore, personal injury to the petitioner is not essential in a genuine PIL.

2. But "anyone" cannot misuse PIL

The relaxation of locus standi does not mean that every person has an unrestricted right to file a PIL concerning somebody else's dispute.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasised that the petitioner must be bona fide and genuinely interested in the public cause. Courts are expected to discourage PILs filed for personal, political, private, publicity-oriented or other extraneous purposes.

The Calcutta High Court has similarly observed that although the concept of locus standi is considerably relaxed in PIL matters, it has not simply disappeared.

3. Particularly important in a private dispute

Suppose A and B are having a private property dispute, and C, who is a stranger to the dispute, files a PIL asking the High Court to cancel a permission, stop construction, demolish a structure, or decide the rights of A and B.

Merely describing the dispute as a "public interest" matter will not make it a PIL.

The Court can examine whether C is actually espousing a public cause or is merely attempting to achieve indirectly what A or B could not obtain directly.

The Supreme Court has cautioned that criminal or judicial proceedings should not be permitted to be converted into a weapon of vendetta between private individuals through the device of PIL.

4. Calcutta High Court procedure

The Calcutta High Court's PIL Rules provide that a PIL may ordinarily be initiated by presenting a petition complying with the requirements for a writ petition. It is placed before the Division Bench constituted by the Chief Justice for PIL matters. The Rules also contemplate, in exceptional circumstances, a letter addressed to the Chief Justice pointing out a violation of constitutional/legal rights or legal injury.

5. Practical test

A useful test is:

Situation	PIL maintainable?
Genuine issue affecting the public at large	Yes
Illegal activity affecting a large section of people	Yes
Environmental/public land/public road issue	Normally yes
Fundamental/legal rights of disadvantaged persons who cannot approach Court	Yes
Purely private property dispute	Normally no
Personal grievance dressed up as PIL	Likely to be rejected
PIL filed for publicity or private vendetta	Likely to be rejected
Petitioner has a direct personal/financial interest but calls it PIL	Serious maintainability objection

Saif Impex Pvt. Ltd. v. Kolkata Municipal Corporation

 

Saif Impex Pvt. Ltd. v. Kolkata Municipal Corporation

2014 SCC OnLine Cal 16044

This case is particularly important because it was expressly relied upon by Justice Shampa Sarkar in Bratati Bera.

The Court dealt with unauthorized construction allegedly made in deviation from the sanctioned plan while an application for a revised plan for regularising the construction was pending.

The Court directed the Municipal authority to proceed under the ordinary demolition provision rather than the emergency demolition provision and, significantly, directed the authority to first consider the revised plan and thereafter decide whether demolition was necessary, depending upon whether the construction could be retained under the Building Rules.

Thus, Saif Impex is particularly useful where the Municipality has proceeded straightaway towards demolition without first deciding the pending revised-plan application.

Partha Dey v. Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Ors.

 

Partha Dey v. Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Ors.

decided on 1 April 2011 — Calcutta High Court

This judgment is important because it provides the necessary limitation to the proposition.

The Court recognised Rule 26(2) of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation (Building) Rules, 2009, concerning deviations during execution of works. It noted that an external deviation which does not violate the Act or Building Rules may require submission of a revised plan for obtaining necessary sanction.

The Court further held that minor/unintentional deviations may, in appropriate circumstances, be regularised, including upon payment of a fine, where the mandatory requirements continue to be satisfied.

However, it cautioned that major deviations or violation of mandatory statutory requirements cannot be regularised merely by payment of money.