Contai Municipality Probe | Supreme Court Dismisses WB Govt's Plea Against HC Order Granting Protection To Suvendu Adhikari's Relatives
The Supreme Court on Friday(October 13) dismissed West Bengal government's plea against a Calcutta High Court order granting protection to relatives and associates of Leader of Opposition Suvendu Adhikari with respect to a police probe over alleged irregularities in contract works in Contai Municipality. A bench of Justices BR Gavai and Prashant Kumar Mishra was hearing a special leave...
The Supreme Court on Friday(October 13) dismissed West Bengal government's plea against a Calcutta High Court order granting protection to relatives and associates of Leader of Opposition Suvendu Adhikari with respect to a police probe over alleged irregularities in contract works in Contai Municipality.
A bench of Justices BR Gavai and Prashant Kumar Mishra was hearing a special leave petition filed by the State of West Bengal against a June 2023 order of the Calcutta High Court directing the state police to allow Sutapa Adhikari, Krishnendu Adhikari, and other associates of Suvendu Adhikari 72 hours' notice before summoning them for questioning, to serve the petitioners with a written show-cause notice before accusing any of them in the case and starting an investigation against them, and to not arrest them for a period of 10 days from the service of such notice. The petitioners had alleged that such notices under Section 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were being misused to implicate and arrest individuals without providing them the opportunity to seek legal recourse.
Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, representing the State of West Bengal, took strong exception to the observations made by the Calcutta High Court and the directives passed by it, while disposing of the quashing petition that had already become infructuous. "Where is this order coming from? There is no legal basis for passing an order of this sort," the senior counsel said,
"This is a petition for quashing of a Section 160 CrPC notice, not even a first information report. The petitioners are not accused individuals. It's not an application for anticipatory bail," Sankaranarayanan exclaimed. He explained that the West Bengal police had issued a notice to Sutapa Adhikari for questioning at her primary residence, and asking her to furnish her income tax return documents. Others were issued similar notices in this connection. "They sought to quash this innocuous order saying that they were related to a member of a different political party."
On the other hand, Senior Advocate PS Patwalia, appearing for Sutapa Adhikari, contended that the West Bengal government has been 'persecuting' individuals. "There's a reason why the Calcutta High Court passed this order. In Contai municipality, the brother of the leader of the opposition was the chairman and his relatives were members. The first information report is lodged on January 2022 by a person saying that the developmental work done by the municipality in 2017 and 2018 are 'deceptive'. The FIR is lodged after five years. The moment the complaint is filed, it's straightaway converted into an FIR."
"Dismissed," Justice Gavai said without further ado.
Sankaranarayanan protested. "These observations..."
"In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to interfere," Justice Gavai pronounced.
Background
The current controversy arises out of the probes initiated against West Bengal leader of opposition and Bharatiya Janata Party leader Suvendu Adhikari, his brothers Soumendu Adhikari and Krishnendu Adhikari, another brother's wife Sutapa Adhikari, and other associates in connection with alleged irregularities in the functioning of the Contai municipality before 2021. The Adhikari family, who has been an influential political presence in the East Midnapore district for several years, is now under scrutiny for their role in the management of the municipal affairs. The Adhikaris were recently summoned by the police for questioning under Section 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, but reportedly none of them responded to the summons.
Apprehending coercive action in the case, Sutapa, Krishnendu, and others filed a petition in the Calcutta High Court, alleging that they were being targeted by the ruling Trinamool Congress Party, which they said was hand in glove with the police administration, for being related to Suvendu Adhikari and for being affiliated with the Bharatiya Janata Party. Citing instances of Section 160 CrPC notices being allegedly misused by the investigating agency to arrest innocent individuals in the past, the petitioners claimed that its intention was to not allow them any time to seek legal recourse by filing for pre-arrest bail.
In its judgment, the Calcutta High Court clarified that Section 160, which empowers the police to summon witnesses, should not be misused to coerce individuals unrelated to an alleged offence, while stressing the need to prevent the misuse of legal provisions for indirect arrests and coercive measures. The court also highlighted the necessity of preventing the misuse of criminal law as a tool for targeted harassment, underscoring the importance of upholding the balance between effective law enforcement and safeguarding citizens' rights.
Even though the state government sought to justify the notices as a necessity for fair investigation, Justice Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee highlighted the importance of upholding the principles of natural justice and ensuring that legal provisions are not used to obstruct individuals' access to legal remedies. Accordingly, while declining to quash the Section 160 CrPC notices since they had already become infructuous, Justice Mukherjee protected the petitioners' rights by directing the petitioners to be given seventy two hours' notice before future summons are issued in connection to this investigation. The high court also directed the petitioners to be served with written show-cause notices before accusing any of them in the case and starting an investigation against them, and to not arrest them for a period of 10 days from the service of such notice.
Against this judgment, the West Bengal government filed a special leave petition in the Supreme Court.
Case Details
State of West Bengal v. Sutapa Adhikari & Ors. | Diary No. 39867 of 2023