NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday refused to interfere with the Calcutta high court order granting protection from arrest to Bharatiya Janata Party leader and West Bengal leader of opposition Suvendu Adhikari in connection with criminal cases lodged against him.
On September 6 last year, a single judge bench of the HC had granted an interim stay on any coercive action against Adhikari in connection with criminal cases -- which were registered after he switched from the ruling Trinamool Congress to BJP. This order was challenged by the West Bengal government before a division bench, that refused to stay the order. Against this dismissal, West Bengal had appealed to the top court.
During Monday’s hearing, the bench of justices DY Chandrachud and AS Bopanna observed that this was the second case coming up against the same order. On December 13, the court had dismissed appeals filed by the West Bengal government and a complainant in one of the cases on the ground that the HC order was passed as an interim direction, pending final consideration of Adhikari’s petition. The top court’s order had permitted the state to file an application before the high court to vacate the stay.
In the present appeal, the state government took fresh grounds questioning the dismissal of its letters patent appeal (LPA) by the HC’s division bench. The bench said, “Since the order of the single judge was assailed before us, the issue of maintainability of LPA pales into insignificance. Parties are to be governed by our order of December 13.”
{{/usCountry}}In the present appeal, the state government took fresh grounds questioning the dismissal of its letters patent appeal (LPA) by the HC’s division bench. The bench said, “Since the order of the single judge was assailed before us, the issue of maintainability of LPA pales into insignificance. Parties are to be governed by our order of December 13.”
{{/usCountry}}Senior advocate Menaka Guruswamy, appearing for the state government, informed the Court that the issue raised in their appeal was similar in nature to a case already pending before the top court. She said, “the issue here is whether LPA can be moved in terms of a writ petition before the high court under Article 226 of Constitution. This question is pending consideration in the Anup Majee v CBI case pending before this Court.”
“We have already dealt with the HC order on merits; then where is the question of LPA? Once you have approached us on merits and we have dismissed your appeal, there is no question of dealing with another petition against the same order,” the bench said.
Guruswamy sought to argue that the question raised by the state has not been dealt by the December 13 order. She even requested the court to allow this matter to be tagged with the Anup Majee petition as similar questions of law have to be decided.
For Adhikari, senior advocate PS Patwalia opposed the state’s arguments and requested the court to dismiss the same. As regards clubbing the petition with the other pending case, the bench told the state, “The state is already before us in the Anup Majee matter.”
Adhikari had approached the HC seeking stay of arrest in seven criminal cases lodged against him in the state. The high court order had stayed any coercive action against Adhikari even as the state government was directed to file its response.
In its December 13 ruling, the top court had said, “Since the high court is seized of the proceedings, and the special leave petitions arise from an interlocutory order, we are not inclined to exercise the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution.”
At the same time, the bench had said, “The High Court may either consider taking up the petition (pending before it) for expeditious final disposal or, in the event that it is not possible to do so, to consider any application that may be filed for modification of the interim order based on the material which is produced by the investigating officer in the affidavit-in-opposition (by state government).”
Adhikari has claimed that the FIRs were the result of “regime revenge”. One case pertained to a theft of ₹5,000 and a gold chain while another related to theft of tarpaulin sheets at the behest of Adhikari. Even an old case of an alleged suicide of Adhikari’s personal security officer (PSO) was sought to be re-investigated on a complaint by the deceased’s widow who alleged murder of her husband.