Sandeshkhali violence: ‘Why should West Bengal come in as petitioner to protect private individuals’, wonders Supreme Court

One can understand if accused are aggrieved by High Court order, but how can State be aggrieved: Solicitor General

Photo for representational purpose only. PTI file

Tribune News Service

New Delhi, April 29

As the West Bengal Government challenges the Calcutta High Court’s order for a CBI probe into the Sandeshkhali violence, the Supreme Court on Monday wondered why the state government should petition it to protect the interests of some private individuals.

”Why should the state come in as a petitioner for protecting the interest of some private individuals?” a Bench led by Justice BR Gavai asked while hearing the state government’s petition challenging the April 10 Calcutta High Court order for a CBI probe into allegations of land grab and crimes against women in Sandeshkhali.

”There are comments about the state government and that is unfair because the state government has taken full action…I (state) am aggrieved, therefore, I am before your Lordships,” senior counsel Abhishek Manu Singhvi, who represented the West Bengal Government, told the Bench.

”The order is only to investigate the allegations of land grabbing...,” the Bench said.

”There is much to be said,” Singhvi replied.

One can understand if the accused are aggrieved by the high court order, but how can the state be aggrieved, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said.

Noting that the state government could approach the high court for expunging the adverse remarks, the Bench posted the matter for hearing in July even as it said pendency of the petition should not be used as a ground for any purposes. “The atmosphere will be conducive after July,” it said.

At the very outset, Singhvi urged the Bench to take up the matter after a couple of weeks because the state government had certain very important information to file. “This is an appeal where findings have been given. These findings need to be challenged,” he said.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted that the pendency of this petition should not be used anywhere else.

”How can I use the pendency? I have filed an SLP (special leave petition),” Singhvi said.

If the other side filed a contempt plea, the state might tell the high court that the Supreme Court was seized of the matter, the Bench noted.

”We will clarify that the matter is adjourned at your instance. So pendency of this SLP would not be a ground for prolonging the proceedings before the high court, the Bench clarified.

In its petition before the top court, the West Bengal government contended that the high court “erroneously” directed the CBI to probe into complaints made by residents of Sandeshkhali and submit a report as the impugned order disregarded the conclusion of investigations into 43 FIRs—all of which had culminated in charge sheets.

About The Author

Tribune News Service

The Tribune News Service brings you the latest news, analysis and insights from the region, India and around the world. Follow the Tribune News Service for a wide-ranging coverage of events as they unfold, with perspective and clarity.