The Supreme Court has refused to grant urgent hearing to a special leave petition challenging the Calcutta High Court order, which refused interim relief on its previous verdict giving liberty to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) to interrogate national general secretary of Trinamool Congress, Abhishek Banerjee, in connection with the primary teachers’ recruitment scam in the state.
The matter was mentioned by Advocate-on-Record Sunil Fernandes before the Vacation Bench of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K.V. Viswanathan on Friday.
Fernandes requested the Apex Court to list the matter next week, contending that the Single-Judge Bench of the High Court had passed the impugned order on May 18 without hearing the defence of the state government on a public holiday.
He further apprised the top court of the country that a Division Bench of the High Court had rejected their prayer for interim relief against the May 18 verdict.
When the Vacation Bench asked the reason for urgent listing of the petition, Fernandes replied that the main appeal in the case was listed next week. Unless there was the protection of an interim order, the CBI and ED will proceed with the matter, he added.
The Apex Court asked Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who was appearing virtually to urgently mention another matter before the Bench, to express his views on the matter.
The law officer had earlier represented the Central agencies in the case. He recalled Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Counsel for the state of West Bengal, appearing before a Bench led by Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud, seeking continuation of a stay granted earlier by the Supreme Court on the grounds that the state would be in difficulty.
The SG said he had then asked how the State could be in difficulty. He said he would understand if the accused had said that. As per the law officer, the judges on the Bench had also laughed and said that the state could not have said this. The Apex Court had then granted liberty to the accused to avail of whatever remedy was available.
The law officer contended that he failed to understand how the State could claim that it would face difficulty if the CBI was allowed to investigate. He said the accused may say this, but not the state government. This was the reason why the Apex Court refused to extend the stay on the High Court order, he added.
The Vacation Bench yesterday agreed with the SG that the urgency may be on part of the individuals accused in this case, but not on the State.
It noted that it has been hearing this matter every week as the same was assigned to this Bench.
The Apex Court then directed the Counsel to mention the matter before the CJI on July 3.
It further suggested Fernandes to seek adjournment from the Calcutta High Court till July 3 on the grounds that the matter was pending before the Supreme Court.
Fernandes requested the bench to pass an appropriate order or direct the matter to be listed on a fixed date.
The Vacation Bench then said that it cannot listed a matter for hearing after vacation, only during this period.
It said the Chief Justice of India, who was the master of roster and the administrative head of the Supreme Court, normally dealt with cases which were orally mentioned for early hearing.
However, during the vacation, whichever Bench had the senior-most judge, discharged this responsibility in the absence of the CJI, but only for the limited purpose of listing cases for urgent hearings during this period, it added.