Supreme Court Sets Aside Calcutta HC Order Allowing FIR Against Suvendhu Adhikari; Asks CJ To Take Fresh Decision

The Supreme Court on Friday set aside the July 20 order order of the Calcutta High Court which had allowed the registration of FIR against BJP MLA Adhikari for allegedly making provocative remarks during the recently held West Bengal Panchayat elections. The Court further requested the Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court to decide the plea seeking FIR against the West Bengal Leader of Opposition afresh after granting him an opportunity of hearing.The Court also clarified that the High Court, in its fresh decision, should not be influenced by the previous orders passed by the HC on September 6, 2021 and December 8, 2022 as per which no FIRs could be registered against Adhikari and no coercive steps could be taken against him without the leave of the High Court.The directions were passed in a petition filed by Adhikari against the July 20 order of the High Court. The matter was listed before a bench comprising CJI DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra. The court also remarked that in its opinion, the July 20 orders of the Calcutta High Court ought not to have been passed without giving Adhikari an opportunity to file a counter affidavit in the matter.At the outset, Senior Advocate PS Patwalia, appearing for Adhikari, submitted that the single judge of the High Court, while passing the July 20 order, had not even issued notice to him. He said–"They didn't even tell me. They sent me an email on my public email ID which gets 5000 emails every day." Pardiwala further submitted that the petition before the High Court "knowing that the Chief Justice would not be holding court for two days".Senior Advocate Jaideep Gupta, appearing for the State of West Bengal, argued–"My learned friend is making these allegations against a judge! The judge is a man of great integrity, second in the High Court. He can't do that. And he's not putting it on paper because he can't dare to do that!"Gupta further contended–"Today one man in West Bengal cannot be arrested at all! Such immunity is only given to President and Governor. Let me tell you, the single judge is not vacating the order. So this man is roaming free, he's not listening to anyone. The police can't be approached. Egregious order on 8th December! The only man in country who is beyond criminal law and he's just making hate speeches."Per contra, Patwalia argued that the State was registering various frivolous FIRs against Adhikari and hence the protection granted to Adhikari against the FIRs was necessary. He said–"24 FIRs against him, today 27 FIRs. If this order goes, there will be 300 more. This is all state speaking from the other side."Dictating the order, CJI DY Chandrachud held–"In our view, it would have been appropriate for the High Court to grant the petitioner to file a counter affidavit in the matter. We request the Chief Justice of the High Court to hear the Writ Petition afresh. To facilitate this, the order dated July 20 shall stand set aside. The High Court shall be at liberty to pass appropriate orders in the pending petitions against the original order both on maintainability and merits. High Court shall not be trammelled by the 6 September and the 8th December orders."BackgroundAdhikari has filed the present petition against the order passed by a division bench of the High Court on July 20, which held that the previous orders cannot be construed to mean a blanket bar on FIRs against him.Adhikari was provided with a shield by two orders of the High Court dated September 6, 2021 and December 8, 2022 which were passed by a single judge of the court in two separate writ applications. The purport of the two orders taken together was that no FIR shall be registered against Adhikari and that no coercive steps can be taken against him without the leave of the High Court. The Supreme Court had refused to interfere with the previous High Court orders granting protection to Adhikari.The division bench held that the previous orders were passed because the court was concerned with certain allegedly false and malicious allegations and complaints being made against Adhikari by the ruling party in the state. The bench further noted that as per Section 41(d) of the Specific Relief Act, an injunction could not be granted to restrain any person from instituting or prosecuting any proceeding in a criminal matter. It noted–"Now, if the interpretation of these two orders is that the respondent no. 3 has been given immunity equal to that of the President of India or the Governor of a State against criminal prosecution it would only be an absolutely erroneous interpretation of the said orders."Accordingly, the High Court interpreted the order not as preventing registration of any criminal complaint against Adhikari for any subsequent event, act, transaction or facts which were not connected with the facts in issue in the aforementioned two writ applications.Case Title: Suvendu Adhikari v. The State Of West Bengal Through Chief Secretary And Ors...

Supreme Court Sets Aside Calcutta HC Order Allowing FIR Against Suvendhu Adhikari; Asks CJ To Take Fresh Decision

Padmakshi Sharma

Tags