Teacher Recruitment Scam : Supreme Court Refuses To Interfere With Calcutta HC Order Allowing ED To Summon TMC MP Abhishek Banerjee; Allows Him To Seek Other Remedies

The Supreme Court on Monday refused to interfere with the Calcutta High Court's order passed on May 18 allowing the Enforcement Directorate to summon Trinamoool Congress leader and Member of Parliament Abhishek Banerjee in relation to the teacher recruitment scam.

Deciding a petition filed by Banerjee against the High Court's order, a bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Justice PS Narasimha said that the investigation cannot be stifled. Observing that the High Court has "duly applied its mind" regarding the need for investigation, the Supreme Court refused to interfere with the direction, adding that the consequence of doing so would be to "stifle the investigation at the incipient stage".

However, the bench allowed the petitioner to avail other remedies in law such as the remedy under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to challenge the ED's action. It clarified that the orders passed by the High Court on April 13 and May 28 will not fetter the right of the petitioner to seek other remedies, as those orders were passed on applications filed in Public Interest Litigations. Also, the cost of Rs 25 lakhs imposed by the single judge on Banerjee was deleted.

"Today for us to stultify the investigation is not appropriate. You have your remedies", CJI Chandrachud orally said during the hearing. Justice Narasimha said that the petitioner has remedies available under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure if he has grievances.

"Can we under Article 136 examine the legality of the summons? You have to follow the other remedies independently", CJI said.

The order passed by the bench stated :

"Reading the order in its entirety, it is evident that the single judge has duly applied her mind to whether the investigation should be throttled. The single judge has held that such direction could not be issued at the present stage. At this stage, we are inclined not to interfere with the impugned order as the consequence of doing so would be to stifle the investigation at the incipient stage itself.

Having said this, we leave it open to the petitioner to pursue all remedies available under law, including the remedy under Section 482 CrPC, since the earlier order passed on April 13 came to be issued while hearing petitions filed in the public interest in the exercise of suo motu jurisdiction. We hence clarify that in the event if the petitioner takes recourse to such remedies as available under law, the observations which are contained in the order dated April 13 or in the impugned order dated May 18 shall not come in the way.

 Finally, since this Court has permitted the filing of applications before the single judge while disposing of the proceedings on April 28, the costs which was imposed by the single judge would have to be deleted, which we accordingly do. However, the deletion of the costs shall not be construed as any expression of any opinion by this Court on the merits of the modalities conducted by the single judge which resulted in the impugned order".

Banerjee filed the special leave petition challenging the order passed by a single bench of Justice Amrita Sinha on May 18 dismissing his application to recall an earlier order passed by a bench of Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay on April 13 giving liberty to the CBI and ED to interrogate Banerjee. While dismissing the application, the High Court bench also imposed a hefty cost of Rs 25 lakh on Banerjee, observing that he being a legislator ought to cooperate with the investigation.

Arguments

Senior Advocate Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for Banerjee, pointed out that the Supreme Court had earlier stayed the April 13 order passed by Justice Gangopadhyay and later directed the matter to be re-assigned to another bench, taking exception to certain television interviews given by Justice Gangopadhyay. However, the second bench refused to recall the order by holding that the findings in the April 13 order have attained finality and operate as res-judicata. Questioning this reasoning, Singhvi said that it is not tenable in view of the Supreme Court's order directing the matter to be re-assigned.

Singhvi contended that the ED was conducting a "fishing and roving" enquiry against Banerjee, without having any material. He added that Banerjee's wife and relatives are also "harassed", although there is no material to link to the case.

"The ED has got no details. On that basis, they've called me six times- when I've been campaigning in remote areas in Darjeeling; twice my wife has been stopped on airport. Please see how shocking this is", Singhvi urged. He pointed out that that April 13 order was passed on the basis of a speech given by Banerjee on March 29, 2023, where he made reference to an accused in the case saying that he was being pressurised by the ED to name Banerjee. However, the ED has gone beyond the remit of that order.

Opposing the petition, Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, appearing for the ED, said that the investigation is not based on Banerjee's speech but in relation to the recruitment scam.

"350 crores have exchanged hands for teachers recruitment. We have found proceeds of crime. Today there is no question of liberty. We have summoned him, he must come and obey the summons", Raju said.

"He says that his wife was arrested. His wife was carrying excess gold so she was detained. Not even arrested. And the moment she was detained, cases were filed against custom officers", Raju added. Also, ED has independent power to investigate the matter, de hors the orders of the High Court, argued the law officer.

The bench told Singhvi that he ought to invoke alternative remedies if has a grievance that the ED's action are in excess of the remit of the singe bench's order. In response, Singhvi contended that since the order was passed in a PIL without hearing him, he was forced to file a recall application.  

Case Title : Abhishek Banerjee vs Soumen Nandi | Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 11588-11589/2023

Click Here To Read/Download Order