Kolkata (West Bengal), [India], January 30 : Trinamool Congress (TMC) leader Kunal Ghosh on Friday responded to the Calcutta High Court's directive to the West Bengal government to hand over land to the Border Security Force (BSF), stating that the state government had already handed over land to the BSF and that the BSF's jurisdiction has increased from 15 km to 50 km from the border line.
Ghosh further questioned the BSF, alleging that persons were still crossing the border from areas where fencing had been installed. He also alleged that there was "some juggling happening in one part due to political reasons."
"I will not comment on the High Court's order. BSF has already fenced the land handed over by the state government. They have increased the jurisdiction of the BSF (Border Security Force) from 15 km from the border line to 50 km. The fencing of the land that they already have has not been completed yet. Another issue is that where the BSF has put up fencing, why are people still crossing the border from there? That is not a matter for the state police; it is the BSF's responsibility. So I cannot comment on the High Court's order. But BSF is confusing. There is some juggling happening in one part due to political reasons," Ghosh told reporters.
Earlier, the Calcutta High Court had taken cognisance of the issue of unfenced Indo-Bangladesh Border (IBB) adjoining West Bengal and had directed the state government to ensure that the border is fenced at the earliest.
A PIL was filed by Lt. Gen. Dr. Subrata Saha, a former Deputy Chief of Army Staff, highlighting the grave issue of unfenced IBB and its impact on national security. The petitioner pointed out that the IBB comprises 4096.70 Kms in total length, with West Bengal sharing the longest stretch of 2216.70 Km.
The petitioner alleged that there has been a serious increase in crime in relation to narcotic drugs, infiltration, and other crimes along the IBB. The petitioner had also provided data, which shows the number of persons apprehended during cross-border infiltration at IBB and the seizure of drugs/narcotic items on IBB.
The court was informed that despite the importance of fencing the border, a sizeable portion of land has not been handed over to the Border Security Force (BSF) for the purpose of fencing. The petitioner's counsel argued that the state government has not disputed that certain lands have been acquired but not handed over to the BSF.
The court directed the state government to file an affidavit indicating the progress made in fencing the border and the reasons for the delay in handing over the land to the BSF. The court also asked the state government to apprise it about the steps taken to prevent infiltration and smuggling of narcotics along the IBB.
The matter is listed for further hearing on February 14, 2026.