The Supreme Court criticized the West Bengal government, questioning its ability to safeguard individual interests in the Sandeshkhali case. The remark came during a hearing related to the government’s plea challenging a High Court order for a CBI investigation into alleged sexual assault, violence, and land grabbing in Sandeshkhali.
NEW DELHI: Today (April 29): The Supreme Court postponed the hearing of the State of West Bengal’s Special Leave Petition (SLP), which challenges the High Court’s order for a CBI investigation into alleged sexual assault, violence, and land grabbing in Sandeshkhali. The adjournment was granted at the request of the state’s counsel, with the court instructing that the petition’s pendency should not be exploited to prolong proceedings in the Calcutta High Court.
The apex court’s inquiry highlights concerns about the State Government’s defense of those accused in such grave matters. The Calcutta High Court had previously directed the CBI to investigate claims of corruption and criminal activities following charges made against Shahjahan and his associates, leading to his suspension from the ruling party.
Background
The controversy began with a plea by the West Bengal government against the High Court’s ruling, which transferred the investigation responsibilities to the CBI. The state’s legal representatives, including senior advocates, sought additional time to file necessary documentation in support of their position.
The Solicitor General, representing the central government, questioned the basis of the state’s grievance regarding the High Court’s judgment, which was aimed at addressing allegations against private individuals rather than the state.
The Bench, comprising Justice BR Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta, granted an adjournment after the vacations, noting Senior Counsel Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi’s request. However, they emphasized that the petition’s pendency should not prolong proceedings for other purposes,” observed the court.
“The Senior Counsel representing the Petitioner requested an adjournment, which has been granted until after the vacations. Dr. Singhvi’s statement has been noted, emphasizing that the pendency of this petition should not be exploited to prolong the proceedings for any other purposes.”
Dr. Singhvi, representing the state, sought an adjournment citing new information collection. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and ASG SV Raju, appearing for the respondents, opposed the adjournment vehemently. The State, in its plea against the Calcutta High Court’s order on Sandeshkhali violence cases, argued that the
“The State of West Bengal, in its plea, argues that the High Court failed to recognize that the PIL petitioners, intervenors, and related parties have political motives. Granting them liberty to file complaints before the CBI could burden the agency with frivolous complaints, hindering actual victims’ opportunity to file a complaint. Additionally, the affidavits of alleged victims enclosed with CAN 1 of 2024 in WPA (P) 93 of 2024 are deemed questionable and subject to further verification. The petitioner, Priyanka Tibrewal, serves as the spokesperson of an opposition political party, leading political protests in Sandeshkhali. Hence, the directions provided by the High Court are considered unwarranted and legally unsustainable.”
On April 10, 2024, the Calcutta High Court, comprising Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam and Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, ordered an impartial inquiry by an agency with criminal probe powers, with the state providing support to the CBI. The state’s plea emphasized the actions taken by the state police, with numerous FIRs filed and chargesheets laid, contrary to the High Court’s portrayal of bias in the state machinery.
“The SLP further contends that there is insufficient evidence to suggest police inaction regarding the alleged incidents. The State highlights that 43 FIRs have been registered, with the earliest dating back four years and the latest on 10.02.2024. Out of these, chargesheets have been filed in 42 cases, including under Section 376 IPC for sexual assault. Additionally, the State Police have filed charge sheets in seven cases of land grabbing on 08.02.2024, along with registering 24 cases of land grabbing. The SLP argues that the Division Bench of the High Court hastily portrayed the entire State Machinery as biased and colluding with the ruling dispensation, overlooking the evidence of measures taken by the State Government and Police in the investigation.”
Since allegations of molestation, rape, and land grabbing involving Shahjahan and his associates Shibu Hazra and Sushanta Sardar, also known as Uttam Sardar, surfaced, there has been significant public unrest in Sandeshkhali. Widespread protests have erupted in response to these charges.
Before the escalation to the High Court, the state police had filed numerous FIRs related to these allegations, leading to chargesheets in nearly all cases. However, the seriousness of the charges and the public outcry prompted the need for a more thorough investigation by the CBI, which has also been investigating related corruption issues in the region.
The Supreme Court has postponed further hearings on this matter until July.
