Supreme Court Refuses To Interfere With Calcutta High Court's Stay On Criminal Proceedings Against Suvendu Adhikari

The Supreme Court on Monday refused to interfere with the September order of a Single Bench of the High Court staying criminal proceedings initiated against BJP MLA and Leader of the Opposition in West Bengal Assembly Suvendu Adhikari.The Calcutta High Court had on September 6 extended interim relief to Adhikari in the context of Crime Investigation Department (CID) summons in connection with the probe into the death of his bodyguard Subhobrata Chakraborty.The bench of Justices D. Y. Chandrachud and A. S. Bopanna was hearing the state of West Bengal's and Chakraborty's wife's challenge to the order of Justice Rajasekhar Mantha issuing a stay on proceedings initiated against Adhikari in respect of cases registered at Contai police station and the Nandigram police station on March 18. Against this order, the state of West Bengal had filed a batch of intra-Court appeals before a Bench comprising Justices Subrata Talukdar and Kesang Doma Bhutia. The Bench, dismissing the same, had observed, "This batch of analogous intra-Court appeals are held to be not maintainable"On Monday, Senior Advocate Kalyan Bandyopadhyay, for the state of West Bengal, submitted, "Can this sort of blanket stay order be passed by the single judge in view of your lordships' orders in Neeharika Infrastructure (2021). In the impugned order, the single judge says that in the instant case, there is prima facie evidence of abuse of police machinery by registration of cases based on concoction. And this is on the very first day of the hearing, without calling for any affidavit! How can the court come to such a finding? And the court says that there shall be a stay of all proceedings!""Have you filed your counter before the High Court?", asked Justice Chandrachud."No! Everything has been stalled, every proceeding. No coercive action shall be taken against them? Nothing will be done? The cases against him are that he abused police officers!", urged Mr. Bandhopadhyay.Justice Chandrachud pointed out that one of the allegations is of theft of tarpaulin sheets, and another about suicide committed by a personal security officer in 2018. The judge also observed that Neeharika was a case where High Courts do not give reasons for a 'no coercive steps' order, while here, the High Court has given reasons at the ad interim stage."What you do is this- file your return before the single judge and apply to the single judge either to vacate the interim order or to dispose off the petition expeditiously", ventured the judge"In that case, the matter would not be heard. 600 admission cases are pending before the court. Court will not decide", advanced Mr. Bandhopadhyay."We will request the single judge...also, this is the order of the single judge order in a 226 petition. This would be subject to intra-court appeal?", asked Justice Chandrachud.Mr. Bandyopadhyay replied, "We have preferred an intra-court appeal. Clause 15 of the letters patent act gives the provision to prefer this appeal. Our appeal was dismissed, saying it is not maintainable. We have preferred an SLP also against that order"As regards his contention that FIRs not subject of the writ petition are also stayed, Justice Chandrachud asked Senior Advocate Harish Salve, for Adhikari, "2 FIRs are not referred to in the prayers at all?"Mr. Salve responded, "It is almost embarrassing to read those FIRs- that Some people stole Rs.5000 and a gold chain outside a Dhaba! And he and the persons who are supposed to have stolen are very affluent people. The idea is to grab them, to arrest them. These are the kind of FIRs. To use a term which Dr. (Rajeev) Dhawan (senior advocate) had coined a while back, this is 'regime revenge'! We mentioned it to the court. This is the residuum of powers which the courts reserve to protect citizens...we say a lot about judges who, despite pressures, continue to work. The Single Judge was told that the SLP is pending. The advocate general was appearing. He was on a demurrer and took 2 objections. The court gives prima facie reasons. He says on the very first day, the decision was taken? If no reason is given, he would have come to the court to say no reason. The court is between a rock and a hard place. The court said file an affidavit in opposition in four weeks on 6th of September. We are today on December 13, they have not filed this affidavit!"Senior Advocate P. S. Patwalia, who represented Adhikari before the High Court, also advanced, "The matter was heard for 4-5 hours a day for a month every day. The judge used to keep his entire list on the hold. Everything was argued threadbare. Repeatedly, the court told them 'if you want to find an affidavit, please file an affidavit'. The advocate general used to appear. It is being uncharitable to the judge. All records were seen. And this is not a one-off scene. There are nine such people who crossed over after the declaration of results from TMC to BJP, and there are a series of cases against all nine. Three judges of the High ...

Supreme Court Refuses To Interfere With Calcutta High Court's Stay On Criminal Proceedings Against Suvendu Adhikari

Mehal Jain

Tags