New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday refused to interfere with a Calcutta High Court order which restrained police from taking any coercive action against Leader of Opposition Suvendu Adhikari in criminal cases relating to him in West Bengal, including in a CID investigation into the unnatural death of his bodyguard.
A bench comprising Justices D Y Chandrachud and A S Bopanna, however, asked the high court to conduct expeditious final disposal of the case.
"This special leave petition has been filed under Article 136 of the Constitution and arises from an interim order of the Calcutta High Court dated September 6, 2021. The single judge has permitted an affidavit in opposition to be filed within four weeks... As of date, West Bengal and the investigating officers are yet to file a reply.
"The observations of the high court prima facie at this stage are in support of the ad interim stay which have been granted. Since the high court is seized of the issue and this SLP arises from an interlocutory order, we are not inclined to exercise the jurisdiction of this court under Article 136 of the Constitution," the bench said, while clarifying that it has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
Article 136 deals with extraordinary power of the apex court to grant special leave in cases.
At the outset, senior advocate Kalyan Bandhopadhyay, appearing for the WB government, submitted that the state police should be allowed to investigate the entire matter subject to any condition imposed by this court. He said no case of malafide is made out against
Adhikari.
"A blanket order is passed such that in future also nothing can be done. The state shall also get leave of the court before arresting the petitioner in such cases. Investigation will reveal the result and the appropriate criminal court can do its job. Complaint has not been made by me. Complaints have been lodged by different persons which discloses an offence, then the police has to register a case or not," he submitted.
He submitted that if he discharged his duty according to the Lalita Kumari judgment and registered a case, how is the law violated.
"During my 41 years of practice, I've never seen this type of order passed by the high court. Many people have moved to the BJP and cases have not been lodged against all of them. If there is a cognisable offence, cases have to be registered," Bandhopadhyay said.
Senior advocate Anand Grover, appearing for Suparna Kanjilal Chakraborty who is the widow of Adhikari's bodyguard, said the so called death by suicide has not been probed. He said Adhikari should be investigated in the case and there is huge lacunae in the probe.
"The government hasn't done anything. It's true that I made a complaint after the election but the case has not been investigated. This is not political. I've got nothing to do with any political party. I could not have made a complaint when he was in power... I'm a poor woman, my husband was a security officer. The FIR doesn't mention the name of the respondent. Why should I come in the crossfire between BJP and TMC," Grover submitted.
Senior advocate Menaka Guruswamy, appearing for the WB government, also sought to argue in the matter.