Supreme Court Dismisses WB Govt's Plea Challenging HC Order Granting Protection To BJP's Suvendu Adhikari

"Have you filed your counter before the High Court?", asked Justice Chandrachud.

"No! Everything has been stalled, every proceeding. No coercive action shall be taken against them? Nothing will be done? The cases against him are that he abused police officers!", urged Mr. Bandhopadhyay.

Justice Chandrachud pointed out that one of the allegations is of theft of tarpaulin sheets, and another about suicide committed by a personal security officer in 2018. The judge also observed that Neeharika was a case where High Courts do not give reasons for a 'no coercive steps' order, while here, the High Court has given reasons at the ad interim stage.

"What you do is this- file your return before the single judge and apply to the single judge either to vacate the interim order or to dispose off the petition expeditiously", ventured the judge

"In that case, the matter would not be heard. 600 admission cases are pending before the court. Court will not decide", advanced Mr. Bandhopadhyay.

"We will request the single judge...also, this is the order of the single judge order in a 226 petition. This would be subject to intra-court appeal?", asked Justice Chandrachud.

Mr. Bandyopadhyay replied, "We have preferred an intra-court appeal. Clause 15 of the letters patent act gives the provision to prefer this appeal. Our appeal was dismissed, saying it is not maintainable. We have preferred an SLP also against that order"

As regards his contention that FIRs not subject of the writ petition are also stayed, Justice Chandrachud asked Senior Advocate Harish Salve, for Adhikari, "2 FIRs are not referred to in the prayers at all?"

Mr. Salve responded, "It is almost embarrassing to read those FIRs- that Some people stole Rs.5000 and a gold chain outside a Dhaba! And he and the persons who are supposed to have stolen are very affluent people. The idea is to grab them, to arrest them. These are the kind of FIRs. To use a term which Dr. (Rajeev) Dhawan (senior advocate) had coined a while back, this is 'regime revenge'! We mentioned it to the court. This is the residuum of powers which the courts reserve to protect citizens...we say a lot about judges who, despite pressures, continue to work. The Single Judge was told that the SLP is pending. The advocate general was appearing. He was on a demurrer and took 2 objections. The court gives prima facie reasons. He says on the very first day, the decision was taken? If no reason is given, he would have come to the court to say no reason. The court is between a rock and a hard place. The court said file an affidavit in opposition in four weeks on 6th of September. We are today on December 13, they have not filed this affidavit!"

Senior Advocate P. S. Patwalia, who represented Adhikari before the High Court, also advanced, "The matter was heard for 4-5 hours a day for a month every day. The judge used to keep his entire list on the hold. Everything was argued threadbare. Repeatedly, the court told them 'if you want to find an affidavit, please file an affidavit'. The advocate general used to appear. It is being uncharitable to the judge. All records were seen. And this is not a one-off scene. There are nine such people who crossed over after the declaration of results from TMC to BJP, and there are a series of cases against all nine. Three judges of the High Court have stayed all FIRs. 2 subsequent FIRs were brought to the notice of the court by way of an affidavit. The FIRs are ridiculous. That I was having food, two people came inside and stole my chain, and this was Done at the behest of Suvendu Adhikari! Another says that 25 tarpaulin sheets were stolen! The judge saw all this!"

Continuing, Mr. Salve advanced, "It is a Little uncharitable to say that the High Court jumped to this conclusion. It was a slow long walk to this conclusion, it took one month of submissions, from what Mr Patwalia says. The state took the risk of arguing this case without counter affidavit...it is a Tribute to all our courts that no judge is bothered by who is what."

The bench then proceeded to dictate its order- "The special leave petition under Article 136 of the Constitution arises from an interim order of a single judge of the Calcutta High Court in a writ petition. The single judge has permitted affidavits-in-opposition to be filed within a period of four weeks and the reply, if any, within a period of two weeks thereafter. As of date, the state of West Bengal and the investigating officer are yet to file their replies. The observations of the High Court prima facie are in support of the ad interim stay which has been granted. Since the High Court is seized of the proceedings and the SLP arises from an interlocutory order, we are not inclined to exercise the jurisdiction of this court under article 136. We leave it open to the petitioners to file their responses, their affidavits in opposition before the High Court. Thereafter, the High Court may either consider taking up the petition under article 226 for expeditious final disposal, or in the event that it is not possible to do so, to consider any application which may be filed for modification of interim order based on the material which is produced by the investigating officer in the affidavit in opposition. Subject to the aforesaid direction, the SLP is disposed off. No final opinion is expressed on the merits of the issues which will arise in the pending writ petition before the High Court".