Supreme Court Rejects Abhishek Banerjee's Plea To Gag Media From Reporting Calcutta HC Hearing In Recruitment Scam Case

The Supreme Court on Friday (December 15) declined Trinamool Congress leader Abhishek Banerjee's request for a gag order restraining media coverage of the proceedings before a single judge of the Calcutta High Court monitoring the probe into an alleged multi-tier recruitment scam in the state.

During today's hearing, Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan pressed for a 'suspension of reportage', arguing –

“Certain remarks are extensively, and if I may add, quite unnecessarily made by the single judge of the Calcutta High Court continually. But the petitioner here cannot respond because he is not an accused, nor a party. It is being reported on front pages of newspapers. The entire thing is live-streamed, and clips are taken. The opposition is tweeting. His reputation is being torn to shreds. I am not pressing any of the more adventurous prayers, just this, in terms of the Sahara v. SEBI judgment.”

The bench, comprising Justices Sanjiv Khann and SVN Bhatti, however, refused to issue the gag order, with Justice Khanna explaining that the law on the scope of judicial interference in investigations was laid down in several judgments of the Supreme Court. Ultimately, the court pronounced –

“The petitioner would be satisfied in case an order for suspension of reportage is passed. He relies upon a decision of this court in Sahara v. Securities and Exchange Board of India (2012). The question of court interference or jurisdiction was examined by the division bench of the Calcutta High Court in the judgment dated October 5. We have also passed an order on December 8. The law on this subject has been clarified by this court in numerous decisions. We wish to also clarify that the parties are bound by the orders passed by the court. Learned Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, appearing for the Directorate of Enforcement, states that they are bound by orders of the court and in case, any party is aggrieved by any direction given, it would be entitled to challenge the same in accordance with law. Recording the aforesaid, we are not inclined to pass further directions or orders at this stage. The application is disposed of.

“We would also like to clarify that if the applicant has any grievance, he must approach the division bench of the high court before approaching this court,” the bench added.

Last week, a bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and SVN Bhatti heard and disposed of Banerjee's special leave petition challenging an October 5 Calcutta High Court order allowing the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) to summon MP Abhishek Banerjee, after giving 48 hours' notice, if the disclosure are found to be inadequate after perusing the documents submitted by him.

It noted that no further interference was warranted given the division bench's order, in which the two impugned orders passed by a single judge had merged. The court also took on record Additional Solicitor General SV Raju's assurance that the Enforcement Directorate (ED) would act in accordance with the law.

Background

Abhishek Banerjee, national general secretary of Bengal's ruling Trinamool Congress and Member of Parliament representing the Diamond Harbour constituency, is being questioned by the Enforcement Directorate in connection with its probe into an alleged multi-tier recruitment scam in the state.

In October, the Calcutta High Court instructed the central agency to review documents submitted by Banerjee before summoning him, if necessary. This direction came in response to the parliamentarian's plea against a single-judge order, which removed an ED assistant director from the investigation after noting that the list of assets belonging to Banerjee, as summoned by the court, was glaringly inadequate. The division bench, however, cautioned against making adverse remarks that could impact the rights of individuals under investigation, emphasising the importance of completing the investigation promptly and in accordance with the law.

The bench, comprising Justices Soumen Sen and Uday Kumar, stated that the TMC leader's disclosures should not cause prejudice and urged him to cooperate with the investigation. It also directed the ED to examine the documents submitted by Banerjee and issue summonses with a 48-hour notice, if deemed necessary on ground of finding the disclosure inadequate.

Banerjee's counsel argued that the trial assumed the character of a media trial, with the court acting as a 'prosecutor' by interfering in the investigation. This argument did not find favour with the division bench which observed that the single judge's questions were meant to determine the adequacy of the ED's report due to the want of documents supplied by the accused. In its order, the bench noted –

“The magnitude of the scam is unfathomable. A fair investigation can only restore trust and faith in the system, and it should be the endeavour of all to ensure that the culprits are brought to book and corrupts are punished. We only say that some of the questions appearing in the transcript version were avoidable. However, we do not find any reflection of such questions in the impugned orders. The learned judge perhaps was exasperated due to the incomplete report and tardy progress of the investigation.”

The investigation is expected to conclude by December 31, 2023, with the court closely monitoring the proceedings to ensure transparency and probity in the process.

Case Details

Abhishek Banerjee v. Ramesh Malik & Ors. | Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 23736-23737 of 2023