Supreme Court Dismisses WB Govt's Challenge To HC Ordering CBI Probe Into Sandeshkhali Violence, Expunges HC's Remarks Against Police

During the hearing today, Senior Advocates Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Jaideep Gupta represented the State of West Bengal. The senior counsel questioned the decision to set aside the formation of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) with state police members and instead transfer the case to the CBI.

When the court asked why prime accused Shahjahan Sheikh had not been arrested for many days, Gupta cited a stay on the investigation. He also challenged the high court's remarks alleging the state police's complicity –

“First, they did not cooperate with us despite repeated notices. Then they went and obtained an order from the court saying that there will be no investigation by the state police. Because of media pressure, we approached the court for clarification. Then, the court clarified on February 28 that we are at liberty to make arrests. Within one day, Sheikh was arrested. To say that we have delayed the proceedings is utterly incorrect.”

“The investigation was stayed at a later point in time,” Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, representing the Central Bureau of Investigation, countered.

Highlighting the events leading to the assault on ED officials, he alleged that the state police had helped the accused evade arrest. Raju also argued that there were other deficiencies in the state police's handling of the case, including delays in adding a charge under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code.

“They tried to water down the case, insofar as the assault of the Enforcement Directorate officers is concerned. They filed some other case. That's why the investigation was stayed. Advocate General then agreed to add Section 307. A counter-version was registered alleging theft and molestation by the ED officers. Before our FIR, that FIR [filed by Shahjahan Sheikh's associate] is taken on record. After the joint SIT was constituted, they refused to hand over relevant documents. There are several cases of harassment against Shahjahan Sheikh. He has been patronised by local police and politicians.”

As the courtroom discussion unfolded, the issue of the critical observations made by the high court regarding the conduct of the state government and police arose. Singhvi expressed concern about these 'strictures', prompting the bench to consider expunging these remarks.

In response to this, the additional solicitor general conceded that the critical remarks made by the high court may be deleted. “There is substance in those allegations. But, those observations may be deleted, and then the matter may go. I have no objection.”

After deliberation, the bench pronounced, “The learned ASG fairly states that the respondent is not interested in maintaining those observations. He submits that if those observations are expunged, there is no objection. We are therefore not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. We are not inclined to entertain the special leave petition insofar as the final order is concerned. However, the observations made in the impugned order with regard to the conduct of the police and the state government shall stand expunged."