E-Paper
SC refuses urgent hearing to Suvendu Adhikari against Calcutta HC order
A bench of justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Sudhanshu Dhulia told Suvendu Adhikari that his matter was already listed for August 4
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Thursday refused to grant an urgent hearing to West Bengal Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader Suvendu Adhikari who challenged last week’s Calcutta high court order permitting the police to register a first information report (FIR) against him for an alleged hate speech ahead of the panchayat elections.
A bench of justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Sudhanshu Dhulia told Adhikari that his matter was already listed for August 4 and directed the matter to come up on that date.
Advocate Bansuri Swaraj who appeared for Adhikari, told the court, “I am in a precarious situation. Please list the matter on July 31.” She said the high court order was passed without hearing him as he enjoyed protection from arrest under two orders passed in separate proceedings by the high court in September 2021 and December last year. These orders have been upheld even by the Supreme Court. The bench told Swaraj, “It is already coming up on August 4. All that we can say is that it shall not be deleted from the list.”
Adhikari approached the top court challenging the high court’s July 20 order on a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by one Suman Singh who alleged that Adhikari was making hate speeches that can promote enmity between different groups in society. Since Adhikari enjoyed the protection of two high court orders passed on September 6, 2021 and December 8 last year restraining police from registering FIR or taking coercive action against him, the petitioner complained that such acts were going unpunished.
A division bench of justices IP Mukerji and Biswaroop Chowdhury directed the police to treat the PIL as a complaint and allowed the police to proceed with the registration of FIR if the facts narrated in the petition make out the commission of an offence of hate speech punishable under Section 153A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The court protected Adhikari to the extent that it did not permit the police to arrest him.
The order allowed police to carry out investigations and submit a report to the court by August 7. The high court held: “Arrest of the respondent no. 3 (Adhikari) or any other coercive action against him can only be made in terms of the report only if leave is granted by this court.”
While mentioning the matter for urgent listing, Swaraj said the state government has already filed 26 FIRs against Adhikari since he became a member of the legislative assembly (MLA) from BJP in 2021. “There are two high court orders that protect me and this court has upheld the orders on five occasions,” she said, adding that the police stopped registering new cases against Adhikari after these orders.
Adhikari in his petition filed through advocate Siddhesh Shirish Kotwal said, “The order (of July 20) can have serious ramifications at this stage, potentially leading to registration of additional FIRs against the petitioner. The police machinery in West Bengal is in collusion with the current ruling party, constantly attempting to foist cases against the petitioner.”
“The (high court) bench despite acknowledging that the orders dated September 6, 2021 and December 8, 2022 have been contested before the Supreme Court as well as division bench of the high court on multiple occasions, and as such the said order remains unaltered, passed directions to register FIR.”
The petitioner in the high court has filed a caveat in the Supreme Court, which means that the top court will hear the petitioner who is represented by advocate Soumya Dutta, before passing any order.
To be sure, the high court’s July 20 order underlined that there was no judicial bar on registering a case against Adhikari if an offence was committed.
“On our close examination of the said two orders passed by the single judge of this court, we find that the court was concerned with certain allegedly false and malicious allegations and complaints being made against the respondent (Adhikari) and FIRs being lodged against him, at the material time.”
It continued: “The said orders are not to be interpreted as preventing registration of any criminal complaint or FIR against the respondent for any subsequent event, act, transaction or facts which are not connected with the facts in issue in the said two writ applications (in which the orders came to be passed)... The state police authority shall exercise their powers in accordance with law and carefully examine whether the acts narrated disclose any offence under Section 153A of IPC. If they are so satisfied they will register the FIR under Section 154 of the Criminal Procedure Code.”
