Supreme Court Refuses Urgent Listing For BJP MLA Suvendhu Adhikari's Plea Against Calcutta HC Order Allowing FIRs Against Him

The Supreme Court on Thursday refused urgent listing for a petition filed by BJP MLA and West Bengal Opposition Leader Suvendhu Adhikari challenging an order of the Calcutta High Court allowing registration of FIR against him for allegedly making provocative remarks during the recently held West Bengal Panchayat elections.

Advocate Bansuri Swaraj mentioned the matter before a bench led by Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul for urgent listing. However, Justice Kaul said that the matter is shown as listed on August 4 and declined to advance the hearing. Swaraj persuaded for an earlier date, saying that a week can be a long time, putting Adhikari in a "precarious position".

She pointed out that the High Court has previously passed orders barring the registration of the FIRs against him and those orders were upheld by the Supreme Court.

"I was protected by the two orders of the High Court by which no further FIRs should be registered against me....This court upheld that...The High Court is effectively sitting on a review of this court now", the counsel said. Justice Kaul however refused to advance the hearing from the already fixed date, August 4. But the judge assured that the matter will not be deleted from the list of August 4. "It is listed for 4th August, not to be deleted", he said.

Adhikari has filed the present petition against the order passed by a division bench of the High Court on July 20, which held that the previous orders cannot be construed to mean a blanket bar on FIRs against him.

Adhikari was provided with a shield by two orders of the High Court dated September 6, 2021 and December 8, 2022 which were passed by a single judge of the court in two separate writ applications. The purport of the two orders taken together was that no FIR shall be registered against Adhikari and that no coercive steps can be taken against him without the leave of the High Court. The Supreme Court had refused to interfere with the previous High Court orders granting protection to Adhikari.

The division bench held that the previous orders were passed because the court was concerned with certain allegedly false and malicious allegations and complaints being made against Adhikari by the ruling party in the state. The bench further noted that as per Section 41(d) of the Specific Relief Act, an injunction could not be granted to restrain any person from instituting or prosecuting any proceeding in a criminal matter. It noted–

"Now, if the interpretation of these two orders is that the respondent no. 3 has been given immunity equal to that of the President of India or the Governor of a State against criminal prosecution it would only be an absolutely erroneous interpretation of the said orders."

Accordingly, the High Court interpreted the order not as preventing registration of any criminal complaint against Adhikari for any subsequent event, act, transaction or facts which were not connected with the facts in issue in the aforementioned two writ applications.