Calcutta HC asks state govt to explain why it ended Common Services Center program in Bengal
Petitioner claims state govt's decision violated constitutional provisions
On Monday, the Calcutta High Court ordered the state government to submit an affidavit outlining the reasons it decided to end the Common Services Center program in Bengal in 2020.
The Union government had started the program to provide all rural inhabitants access to information on the provision of public services managed by it as part of its e-governance strategy. The initiative was also launched to increase everyone's access to high-quality education and skill development.
The division bench of Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam requested the state government's affidavit about any comparable schemes it may have run or its future plans regarding the matter, as well as the Centre's affidavit regarding its claim against the state government. After three weeks, the issue will be heard.
The decision on Monday came in response to a recent public interest lawsuit filed by BJP state president Sukanta Majumdar, who claimed that the state administration had opted not to administer the CSC program in Bengal in 2020.
Advocate Nilanjan Bhattacharya testified on behalf of petitioner Majumdar, saying the central plan was established in 2015 to make it simple for rural residents to obtain financial, technical, and educational assistance via government programs.
"There were 250 centers where the average person may get services. However, the state government ended the plan in the state in 2020. As a consequence, over 40,000 program participants lost their jobs, according to Bhattacharya.
Ashok Chakrabarti, another solicitor general, stated: "The state's decision was against provisions laid out in the Constitution."
Case Nawsad
ISF MLA Nawsad Siddique was granted conditional anticipatory bail on Monday by a division bench of the Calcutta High Court, which is presided over by Justice Debanshu Basak. Siddique had moved court anticipating arrest in relation to a complaint made by a woman in Domkal who claimed the MLA had raped her by falsely promising her marriage. The judge granted anticipatory relief but stipulated that Siddique speak with the case's investigating officer twice a week.
