SC dismisses former RG Kar principal’s plea against HC order
Kolkata: The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed the petition of ex-principal of RG Kar Kar Medical College & Hospital, Sandip Ghosh, who had challenged the Calcutta High Court’s order directing a CBI probe into the alleged financial irregularities committed by him during his tenure.
The Bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra observed that an accused does not have the locus standi to be heard in a plea seeking the transfer
of investigation.
The counsel of Ghosh is learnt to have argued that his client has no objection to the enquiry but to the linking of this corruption allegations of the rape and murder of the junior doctor of the hospital. It was further submitted that the High Court’s order was passed in a PIL filed by a former staff of the hospital, Akhtar Ali whose earlier PILs on the same issue were dismissed by the High Court. The CJI is learnt to have said: “We don’t have to give Akhtar Ali a clean chit. These are not matters which can be disposed of on a technicality that three PILs
were dismissed.
The High Court is in seisin. They have transferred the investigation to the CBI. At this stage, you have no locus at all. Akhtar Ali himself may be a subject of enquiry. That is a separate issue “. He added: ““The issue of biomedical waste is a trigger. And therefore, the High Court wishes that this matter should be pursued to its logical conclusion. It’s not necessary for us to intervene”. With Ghosh’s counsel submitting that the CBI should only investigate so far as the biomedical waste is considered without linking it to the murder-rape incident, the CJI said the court can’t say how the Central Agency should investigate the matter.
Further, with the counsel pressing for expunging the observations made by the High Court in its order, the CJI said these were “prima facie observations.” With the counsel requesting that in this case the court may record that these are “prima facie observations” as the petitioner would be prejudiced otherwise, the bench refused to.
