Supreme Court Rejects Suvendhu Adhikari's Plea To Transfer Mamata Banerjee's Election Petition From Calcutta High Court

"We will not allow this choice of High Courts. The High Court which had jurisdiction let them try the matter there."

A Bench comprising Justices D.Y. Chandrachud and Hima Kohli noted in the order that Adhikari seeks to withdraw the transfer petitioner. It granted liberty to him to approach the concerned Judge of the Calcutta High Court presiding over the trial of the election petition as and when the need arises to seek appropriate directions for orderly conduct of the trial.

"Mr. Harish Salve seeks to withdraw the petition, stating that the petitioner may move the Ld judge of the HC presiding over the trial of the election petition if any need arises to facilitate the issuance of appropriate directions for orderly conduct of the trial in election petition."

Justice Chandrachud observed that transferring the petition would indicate that the Apex Court is expressing its lack of faith in the Calcutta High Court.

"If we transfer we would be expressing a view of lack of faith in the entire High Court."

Refusing to interfere, Justice Chandrachud reckoned that the High Court should be able to have control over their jurisdictional litigation.

"Let the High Courts have control over their litigation. We should not be sending a message that we don't have faith in the High Courts."

Senior Advocate, Mr. Harish Salve, appearing on behalf of Adhikari apprised the Bench of his predicaments. He stated that the atmosphere in Calcutta was not congenial for the hearing of the election petition. He added that a letter was written by the Chief Minister herself stating that because she had opposed a particular Judges' appointments he should recuse from hearing a connected matter. It was highlighted that Judges who have granted relief to Adhikari in related matters have incurred the wrath of the State administration. In this regard, he cited an FIR being filed against a Judge who has passed orders unfavourable to the present dispensation in West Bengal.

"What is going on there is distressing…Atmosphere you have created is if a judge passes an order unfavorable to a dispensation see what happens to that judge, there is FIR against a judge."

The Bench was of the view that the Chief Justice of the High Court as well as other judges have adequate powers to ensure that congenial atmosphere is maintained while the trial in the election petition is going on.

"Their shoulders are broad enough to deal with it."

Mr. Salve responded that he has not approached the Apex Court against the judges, in fact, he asserted that the Judges of the Calcutta High Court are also 'on the receiving end' of the Government excesses.

"Today the Chief Justice of the High Court himself is threatened….There is no problem with the Judges. They are at the receiving end."

As Mr. Salve beseeched the Apex Court to record in its order that the Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court would ensure that the security is provided, Justice Chandrachud refused his request stating -

"We will not observe anything now. Then it would be an acceptance of the fact that the atmosphere is not congenial…Let the trial start if witnesses demonstrate apprehension, you draw it to the attention of the court."

Justice Kolhi observed that Adhikari and the other witnesses in the trial can approach the concerned Judge and security can be provided to them as and when the need arises. However, she thought it would not be fit to make any specific observations in this regard.

"If you ask we're sure you will be provided security. We may not make any observations right now."

The present matter relates to the Election Petition moved by West Bengal's CM Mamata Banerjee before the Calcutta High Court challenging Suvendu Adhikari's election win from the Nandigram constituency in the West Bengal Assembly Polls.

The Calcutta High Court's Justice Shampa Sarkar had in July last year issued notice to Suvendu Adhikari, the elected candidate of BJP and directed that the records and papers in relation to the election be preserved during the pendency of the petition.

The case was assigned to Justice Shampa Sarkar after the recusal of Justice Kausik Chanda. Banerjee had objected to Justice Chanda hearing the petition on the apprehension of bias due to his association with BJP when he was a lawyer. Last week, Justice Chanda recused from hearing the case saying that "trouble mongers will keep the controversy alive if he does not recuse". Taking exception to the manner in which his recusal was sought, Justice Chanda had imposed a cost of Rupees 5 lakhs on Banerjee.

[Case Title: Suvendu Adhikari v. Mamata Banerjee T.P.(C) No. 1240/2021]

Click Here To Read/Download Order