[Sandeshkhali] Calcutta High Court Reserves Verdict In Pleas Seeking Probe Into Allegations Of Sexual Violence, Land Grabbing

The Calcutta High Court on Thursday reserved its verdict in various pleas seeking a probe into the alleged instances of violence against women and land grabbing which had occurred in Sandeshkhali, West Bengal under the watch of former Pradhan Shahjahan Sheikh, and his workers.

Earlier, the Court had directed the investigation into the attack on ED officials allegedly at the behest of Sheikh's officials to be transferred to the CBI, as well as custody of Shahjahan Sheikh.

On this occasion, a division bench of Chief Justice TS Sivagnanam and Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharya were considering public interest litigations seeking an independent probe into the instances of violence alleged against Shahjahan and his men.

Additional Solicitor General SV Raju appearing for the ED sought for the records of all criminal cases against Shiekh to be transferred to the ED, regardless of whether they had been transferred, and the same was objected to by the Advocate General.

Court directed the AG to place on record the cases against Shahjahan before the Court, after which a call would be taken on if it needed to be handed over to the ED.

Advocate Priyanka Tibrewal in her PIL sought for the probe to be transferred to a court-monitored commission, which would receive complaints from the locals and compile a report for the Court, while another Advocate sought for the probe to be handed over to the CBI.

Tibrewal argued that she had personally visited the affected area with her colleagues, and they had received complaints from multiple women who were afraid to approach the police due to potential repercussions but wanted to voice their objections against the ruling dispensation in the area.

She submitted that the issues ran deep into the administration in the area and that all government officials including police officers and land officials were involved in the failure of the rule of law that had prevailed in the region.

She placed affidavits of women who were allegedly affected by the sexual violence before the court and submitted, "if they prove a single affidavit is wrong, I will quit my practise forever."

Upon hearing these arguments, the Chief Justice expressed strong resentment on the contents of the affidavit placed before the bench and orally remarked:

"The entire district administration and ruling dispensation must owe a moral responsibility. Even if [the affidavit] 1% is true it is absolutely shameful. And West Bengal says it is safest for women? If one affidavit is proved to be right all of this falls."

Advocate appearing for an intervenor submitted that irrespective of political opinion, he had witnessed a "total failure" of all law and order in the region, and that land was indeed grabbed, with the locals living in fear. 

ASG Ashoke Chakrabarti submitted that while the suggestion for the constitution of a Commission would be prudent, guidelines and issues needed to be framed for the commission, without which the exercise itself would be futile.

Advocate Alakh Srivastava, another public interest litigant submitted that he was seeking a CBI probe into the issue and the deployment of CRPF personnel "to instil confidence in the people."

Advocate General for the State, Kishore Datta began his submissions by looking at the nature of PILs being filed before the Calcutta High Court in the recent past and objected to the maintainability of the pleas.

It was submitted that such litigants approach the court in a hurry every time an unfortunate incident occurs seeking CBI probes, independent probes, etc. but as soon as the next unfortunate incident occurred, they would move and and not espouse their earlier cause.

The AG also cast aspersions on the motivation of Advocate Priyanka Tibrewal in filing her PIL by stating that she had political affiliations (Tibrewal is a member of the BJP) and the same should be considered by the Court while adjudicating.

"The question is that is the person a genuine public interest litigant or is he masquerading for others? Is he a bystander or a politically motivated person? Please take judicial notice of the gross personal interest that has been displayed," it was argued.

It was further submitted that these PILs would spring up every time a headline incident occurred and that there was no element of background research that had been undertaken by the litigants prior to the incidents in question. 

"There is no continuing cause of action in a PIL. Independent research irrespective of event or cause of action to find out the facts of the matter and then come to court without being triggered by any events is research," it was argued.

It was argued that even in the case at hand, the ED was attacked by Shahjahan's men when they had gone to raid him without informing the State police, whereas it was the state police itself that saved the ED when they were attacked.

It was argued that there was no place to question the motivation of the state administration which had registered cases against the accused and was conducting its investigation.

AG argued that in cases such as this, the Court should look into the efficacy of the investigating agencies themselves to determine how many cases had been finally tried, and what the conviction rate was.

"Accused switching political parties are being given a clean chit. Central agencies have lost their trust. Long back CBI was said to be a caged parrot. Justice NV Ramana after his retirement said the same," it was said.

In response to the AG's arguments, DSG Dhiraj Trivedi submitted that the only reason the investigative agencies were not able to function was due to the roadblocks placed before them by the ruling administration.

We didn't start the fire, it was always burning since the world was turning. The state has not let us function in the state due to the dereliction of the state authorities, it was argued.

Accordingly, upon hearing all parties, the Court reserved its judgment in the matter.