Supreme Court declined to consider a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) requesting a CBI/SIT inquiry into the allegations of sexual assault against women in Sandeshkhali, West Bengal. However, Justices BV Nagarathna and Augustine George Masih allowed the petitioner to seek recourse from the Calcutta High Court, which has already initiated suo motu proceedings regarding the Sandeshkhali violence. The Bench noted that the High Court possesses the authority to establish the SIT, emphasizing the avoidance of duplicative forums or concurrent proceedings.
Sandeshkhali violence case, West Bengal: On Monday (19/02/24) the Supreme Court of India, led by a bench comprising Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Augustine George Masih, has directed the petitioner to seek redress at the Calcutta High Court. The decision came after the petitioner, appearing in person, sought to withdraw the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed under Article 32,( gives the right to individuals to move to the Supreme Court to seek justice when they feel that their right has been ‘unduly deprived) aiming for a court-monitored probe into the incidents of violence and alleged sexual assault in the region.
“The petitioner who has appeared in person, after arguing the matter for some time, sought permission to withdraw this petition filed under Article 32, with liberty to seek reliefs before the Calcutta High Court. Consequently, this writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn while granting liberty to the petitioner to seek appropriate relief before the Calcutta High Court,”
the bench articulated in its order, emphasizing the procedural path forward for the petitioner, Alakh Alok Srivastava.
Highlighting the jurisdictional and procedural propriety, the bench further clarified,
“This plea is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty reserved to approach High Court,”
ensuring that the petitioner has a clear avenue to pursue justice at the state level.
During the proceedings, Srivastava raised concerns about the challenges faced by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in conducting investigations in West Bengal, particularly against TMC leader Sheikh Shahjahan.
“There is a TMC leader Sheikh Shahjahan. ED is probing him and when ED went there, all of them were attacked. Even for ED, it is difficult to conduct trial there,”
he expressed, pointing to the complexities surrounding the case.
However, Justice B.V. Nagarathna, addressing the counsel’s concerns, underscored the competence of the Calcutta High Court in handling the matter.
Also Read- Supreme Court’s Scrutiny Of Political Protests: ‘What If Common Man Does This’ (lawchakra.in)
“A learned single judge of the High Court has taken cognizance of this matter. Whatever reliefs you want within that cognizance, you can seek impleadment. Because local HC will be best to assess the situation…We understand your eagerness and sympathy for the victims etc. but monitoring of an investigation by this Court is completely different,”
she stated, delineating the Supreme Court’s stance on jurisdiction and its faith in the high court’s ability to adjudicate effectively.
The dialogue took a turn when the counsel highlighted post-cognizance statements from the West Bengal Chief Minister and the state’s police, denying the occurrence of rape. To this, Justice Nagarathna responded,
“That is a different thing. That is not evidence,”
pointing out the distinction between official statements and judicial evidence, and emphasizing the need for a thorough legal examination of the allegations.
This Supreme Court directive not only reaffirms the structured approach of India’s judiciary in addressing state-level issues but also highlights the critical role of high courts in assessing and adjudicating matters within their jurisdiction. By directing the petitioner to the Calcutta High Court, the Supreme Court has underscored the importance of local judicial mechanisms in resolving complex legal challenges, ensuring that justice is sought and served through the appropriate channels.
Case Details-
Alakh Alok Srivastava v. State of West Bengal and others | W.P.(Crl.) No. 84/2024
Also Read- WBIDC Challenges Arbitral Award Against Tata Motors In Singur Case (lawchakra.in)