E-Paper
Fight political battles before electorate, not in court: SC
Senior advocate Maninder Singh, appearing for petitioner, told the court that a request for Attorney General’s consent to initiate contempt proceedings had been filed and sought an adjournment
The Supreme Court on Monday raised concern over the growing trend of political narratives seeping into the courtroom, warning governments and other litigants against converting it into a political battleground.
In two distinct but telling interventions, Chief Justice of India (CJI) Bhushan R Gavai, heading benches in both cases, underscored that political controversies must be contested in the electoral arena, not before constitutional courts.
During a hearing on Monday, the CJI’s bench, also comprising Justice K Vinod Chandran, cautioned against politicisation while hearing a petition seeking criminal contempt proceedings against West Bengal chief minister Mamata Banerjee for her public remarks criticising the top court’s verdict that had invalidated thousands of teachers’ appointments in the state.
The plea, filed by Aatmdeep, a charitable trust based in North 24-Parganas, alleged that Banerjee’s statements amounted to defiance of the Supreme Court’s April ruling that upheld the Calcutta High Court’s cancellation of around 25,000 tainted appointments made through the West Bengal School Service Commission in 2016.
During the hearing, senior advocate Maninder Singh, appearing for the petitioner, informed the court that a request for the Attorney General’s consent to initiate criminal contempt proceedings had been filed and sought an adjournment. But the CJI, expressing displeasure, remarked:“Are you so sure that you will get the consent? Don’t try to politicise the matter before the court. If you have a political battle, fight it elsewhere.” The bench then listed the matter after four weeks.
The petition cited Banerjee’s provocative remarks made during a meeting with dismissed school staff, including: “Who has the right to take anyone’s job? No one… You can put me in jail for saying this. But I don’t care.” She reportedly went on to allege a conspiracy to “destroy the education system” and openly challenged the authority that had cancelled the appointments, saying: “You are calling all of them thieves. You are calling all of them ineligible. Who has given you the right to say so? I am openly challenging…”
The petitioner argued that such statements, coming from a sitting CM amounted to a willful attempt to erode public confidence in the judiciary and scandalise the court’s authority.
A similar warning against politicisation came minutes later when the same bench refused to entertain a challenge to the Karnataka High Court’s decision quashing a criminal case against BJP MP Tejasvi Surya. The case pertained to Surya’s now-deleted post on social media, where he had amplified claims from a local news portal that a farmer in Haveri district had died by suicide after learning that his land had been taken over by the Waqf Board.
The Karnataka government moved the Supreme Court after the High Court quashed the FIR against Surya. However, the top court flatly rejected the state’s plea. “What is this? Don’t politicise the matter. Fight your battles before the electorate. Dismissed with costs,” observed CJI Gavai, refusing to reopen the issue.
Surya’s post, made on November 7, 2024, linked the suicide of farmer Rudrappa Channappa Balikai to an alleged Waqf Board land dispute. However, the Haveri district police clarified that Balikai had taken his life in January 2022 due to mounting debt and crop failure, and not because of any land conflict. Following this clarification, a suo motu case was registered under Section 353(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) for promoting hatred or ill-will between different groups. The High Court, however, quashed the case, and Surya deleted the post.
