‘Public Interest Or Political Interest Litigation?’: Calcutta High Court In Plea For FIRs Against Suvendu Adhikari Over Panchayat Election Comments

The Calcutta High Court today took up a PIL upon directions of the Supreme Court, pertaining to registration of FIRs and initiation of criminal proceedings against BJP's Leader of Opposition in West Bengal, Suvendu Adhikari.

A CJI-led bench of the Supreme Court had set aside an order of a division-bench presided over by Justice I.P. Mukherji, which had lifted a stay on coercive action against Adhikari, and directed the West Bengal police to register an FIR for his comments during the Panchayat elections, on the basis of the PIL.

The Supreme Court had also directed for the matter to be placed before the Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court for fresh consideration, without being influenced by any earlier orders passed in the matter.

Upon taking up the matter, a bench of Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam and Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharya orally remarked,

“We have to first decide whether it is a public interest litigation or political interest litigation. We are not concerned about who comes as a petitioner…yesterday the concern of the state was who is the petitioner not what is the cause…we have made an observation, you please read the newspaper today. In a PIL the court doesn’t need to hear the petitioner, he only brings it to the attention of the court. In the election matters we have observed that you are turning court into a political battlefield. Let affidavits be filed, matter to appear after 5 weeks.”

Upon hearing these submissions, the Bench enquired whether there was any specific complaint which had been refused by the police, and directed for affidavits in the matter.

“In all fairness one of you should have brought [this] order to our attention…there are directions of the SC…we only came to know after the registry informed us. There is a duty on part of the advocates to place the order before the court, when there is a specific direction. If someone came to us earlier, before the registry had to, our attitude would have been different. But the order was received on 16th August and was placed yesterday before me…how are we supposed to know [if advocates don’t mention]. The SC has given a pointed direction.”

Case: Suman Singh v State of West Bengal & ors

Coram: Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam and Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharya