Read Time: 12 minutes

The Supreme Court has dismissed a petition filed by the West Bengal Government challenging an order of the Calcutta High Court directing the State government to obtain prior permission of the Court before arresting or taking any coercive action against BJP leader Suvendu Adhikari.

A bench of Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice AS Bopanna said, "We are not inclined to exercise our special powers under Article 136."

The State of West Bengal has approached the Apex Court challenging order of the Calcutta High Court that noted, “Prima facie there appears to be an attempt at implicating and victimizing....A scheme and/or conspiracy appear to have been devised to entrap the petitioner and his associates to ensure their incarceration and custody inter alia to embarrass them.”

Senior Advocate Kalyan Bandopandhyay appearing for the State of West Bengal submitted that all the proceedings have been stayed and no proceedings can take place, despite the fact that there are several FIRs against Adhikari.

"Learned Single Judge said that in a number of cases, FIRs have been registered at several police stations, My Lords, is it not the duty of the officer to register an FIR if a complaint comes? The complaint has been lodged by different persons. If an officer discharges his duty can it be said to be mala fide?" Bandopadhyay asked.

While referring to the High Court order, he said, "Reason given is one thing and reason sustainable in law is another thing, the Learned Single Judge cited "as per evidence", what evidence? No evidence was produced before the court."

Whereas, Senior Advocate Harish Salve appearing for Adhikari submitted that, "The constitutional power of the court is to protect against the abuse of the office, if a string of FIRs are filed, if a judge of High Court feels something, he cannot say it? The Courts are not bothered about who is what."

The bench while dismissing the petition said that, "The High Court may either consider taking up the petition expeditiously or if it is not possible, place an affidavit and the High Court may take it up for final disposal. This Court has not expressed any final opinion on the merits of the case."

Background

Calcutta High Court on Monday directed the West Bengal State government to obtain prior permission of the Court before arresting or taking any coercive action against BJP leader Suvendu Adhikari.

The Single Judge Bench of Justice Rajasekhar Mantha was hearing a petition filed by Adhikari complaining of abuse of state and police machinery by the ruling dispensation in registering 6 FIRs against him in 4 different police stations.

Adhikari had approached the High Court seeking interventions in the FIRs alleging that the Mamata Banerjee-led West Bengal government was abusing police machinery. He also sought transfer of the investigation of the said 6 FIRs to the CBI saying that he has no faith in the State police.

Finding substantial force in Adhikari’s argument, the Court said that there appeared to be an attempt at implicating and victimizing him in criminal cases and mala fides.

The Court observed,

“A scheme and or conspiracy and/or pattern and/or stratagem appear to have been devised to entrap the petitioner and his associates to ensure their incarceration and custody, inter alia, to embarrass them.”

Therefore, granting protection from arrest to Adhikari in two cases and staying the investigation against him in four other cases, the Court stated,

“In the instant case there is prima facie evidence before this Court of abuse and/or misuse of State and police machinery in registering cases for investigation based on half-truths, fiction, concoctions and non-events.”

Hinting towards political vendetta, Adhikari’s counsel alleged before the Court that his victimisation and harassment by the State had begun immediately after he changed his political allegiance in December 2020 and intensified after the Assembly elections in May 2021.

However, the counsel for the State opposed Adhikari’s prayers arguing that in two of the FIRs, Adhikari was not specifically named and on the basis of allegations of bias, persecution, and political vendetta, relief can be sought under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C, implying that the petition was not maintainable.

Addressing both the contentions, Court observed that the maintainability of the petition should not be confused with entertainability.

The Court said that it appears from a combined reading of all six cases, that the cases are directly or indirectly linked to the petitioner and/or his close associates who profess the ideology of one political party.

The Court added that well-over 7-8 and in some cases 13 consecutive FIRs have been registered against the associates since after the recent Assembly elections.

The Court also said that the jurisdiction of the High Court cannot be taken away by any subordinate legislation.

“A prayer for transfer of investigation cannot be restricted, to be sought only by a victim of a crime. An accused can equally be prejudiced by a biased investigation or malicious prosecution and can, therefore, seek transfer of investigation,” the Court added.

Therefore, finding Adhikari’s contentions and complaints legitimate, the Court also directed the State to obtain leave of the Court before arresting the petitioner or taking any coercive action against the petitioner in all such cases.

Earlier, the Court had directed immediate release of Rakhal Bera, a close ally of BJP Leader Suvendu Adhikari, adding that the attempts to keep him behind bars pointed to “political vendetta” at the behest of State machinery.

Justice Rajasekhar Mantha while passing orders of forthwith release had then added that no arrest of Bera shall be conducted without High Court’s permission.

“Considering the repeated attempts by persons to lodge one complaint after the other against the petitioner and in a planned and systematic manner and the repeated arrest after bail in one case or the other, this Court is persuaded to grant interim relief to the petitioner” the bench had said.

Cause Title: The State of West Bengal Vs. Suvendu Adhikari and Ors.