Supreme Court Grants Relief To Mamata Banerjee's Election Agent SK Supian, Stays High Court Order Reviving Cases Against Him In Nandigram Violence

Supreme Court has on Friday granted interim relief to Bengal CM Mamata Banerjee's election agent SK Supian in relation to matter of revived FIRs against him in Nandigram violence case.

A division Bench of Justice Indira Banerjee and Justice Krishna Murari has ordered an ad-inetrim stay on the High Court's order dated 5 March 2021 issued in response to a PIL. The FIRs in which SK Supian was named in relation to the Nandigram violence were withdrawn by the West Bengal government in 2020.

The special leave petition has been filed against an order dated 5th march 2021 issued in a PIL whereby orders were issued to re-instate the criminal cases against Supian.

The Additional chief Judicial Magistrate Contai, through an order dated 10th feb 2020 had discharged the petitioner from case initiated against him.

There Court observed that while there were other similar matters discharging accused persons from proceedings, the Court is not concerned with them at this stage.

The Court noted that all contentions may be heard in the writ petition before division Bench of the High Court. However as the order effects the petitioner was passed without hearing petitioner, the Court deemed it appropriate to pass an interim order staying operation of the order dated 5th March 2022 so far as it pertains to the petitioner for a period of 2 weeks till date or until order of High Court hears the case, whichever is earlier.

During the heading Sr Advocate Mukul Rohatgi opposed the relief sought. He stated that "all cases are of 302 and kidnapping. Chargesheet has been filed, and are pending before session court. This man is absconding in all cases. "

He further added that the order was passed in presence of state govt, and all this is happening at the behest of the state. They didn't even file an application under 321 and they say withdrawal will bring peace by letting go murder accused.

"The trial court doesn't apply its mind. You are letting loose these criminals in public! It said that peace has been restored. Peace cannot be restored in case of 302. This is a shocking case where these cases are being withdrawn in a shocking fashion."Rohatgi remarked.

"Because of election you are leaving all gunda's? All involved in such heinous offences!" Rohatgi said.

Rohatgi further added that "there has to be material on record. What is their material to say that there would be peace, that too for people who have been absconding! Public interest would be served by letting loose murderers."

Senior Counsel Rohatgi submitted that the justice is being buried and stifled.

"Why is the state government challenging it before this court. Are they in cohoots with these people." he said.

Senior Adv Vikas Singh appearing for Supian submitted that in case of Nandigram violence, applications under Section 321 CrPC were accepted by the Trial court. A PIL was filed by a BJP leader before High Court and the court decided to revive the charges ex parte. This leads to the petitioner who is an of Chief Minister completely disabled.

He stated that this order needs to be stayed and the High Court can take a final view once they are heard.

Senior Adv AM Singhvi appearing for West Bengal submitted that the Supreme Court itself has given powers to the state government to withdraw cases in political agitations. An elected government can decide to withdraw such cases to create goodwill.

Referring to the High Court's ex parte order, Singhvi stated that he hasn't a single case in the judicial history where such directions have been given in a PIL.

Senior Adv Luthra pointed out the timing of the writ petition, saying that the orders were passed in February and June 2020, and the writ has come in March 2021, just before the West Bengal elections.

The present Special Leave Petition has been filed by Sk. Supian, being aggrieved by the passing of an order by the Calcutta High Court on 05.03.2021 in a PIL petition, without him being given notice, being impleaded, or an opportunity to be heard, which resulted in re- institution of criminal cases against the him in which he was discharged or acquitted in February 2020.

The Petitioner has stated that he was discharged by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate in February 2020, under S. 321, CrPC, in certain criminal cases. These cases were based on baseless charge sheets filed in the context of mass protests against improper land acquisition measures undertaken by the Government of West Bengal during the years 2007-2009 to create a Special Economic Zone in Nandigram, West Bengal.

According to the petitioner, the cases against him alleged that he had engaged in an unlawful assembly and had participated in violence. However, in February 2020 and June 2020, the public prosecutor had filed applications in these cases for withdrawal of prosecution. The High Court in two PILs Dipak Misra v. State of West Bengal & Ors., and Nilanjan Adhikary v. State of West Bengal and Ors., reversed the decision to discharge and acquit him.

Supian in his plea alleged that his personal liberty has been prejudiced, as he was not impleaded before passing of the impugned order, and was granted no opportunity to be heard by the High Court. He became aware of the cases upon knowledge of initiation of the process to issue arrest warrants when criminal cases were reinstituted against him by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Contai.