The Supreme Court will continue its hearing on an appeal by the State of West Bengal and Mamata Banerjee’s election agent S.K Supian against the Calcutta HC order which had revived 14-year-old criminal cases against Supian and others registered during Nandigram violence. (State of West Bengal & Ors v. Dipak Mishra)
The Supreme Court bench of Justices Indira Banerjee & Krishna Murari by its order dated 26.03.2021, had stayed the High Court order against West Bengal’s CM election agent S.K Supian. The order by the HC was passed on a PIL filed by BJP Bengal leader Dipak Misra.
“These Special Leave Petitions are against a common order dated 5 th March, 2021 passed by a Division Bench of Calcutta High Court, in two writ petitions filed as Public Interest Litigation (PIL) being WPA(P) No. 68 of 2021 (Nilanjan Adhikary v. The State of West Bengal and Others) and WPA(P) No.67 of 2021 (Dipak Mishra v. The State of West Bengal and Others) whereby an order dated 10th February, 2020 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate discharging the petitioner from Criminal Case No. 368 of 2007 and other similar orders passed on diverse dates, discharging various persons accused from criminal cases against them, have been stayed and the concerned Courts have been directed to take note of the orders of stay and to deal with the Criminal Cases accordingly,” the Apex Court had noted in its order.
During the hearing, the petitioners counsel had submitted that the Public Interest Litigations were initiated by persons belonging to a political party for oblique reasons. The PILs should not, therefore, have been entertained, he argued.
The Apex Court had further noted in its order that, “While it is true that the Court is required to examine whether a litigation is really in public interest or to advance some other interest in the garb of public interest, at the same time, a Public Interest Litigation cannot be thrown out only because the petitioner belongs to a rival political party. Persons with political affiliations are, as much entitled to file a public interest litigation as any other person. Whether the litigation is bona fide or not is a different issue which has to be examined by the Court on a case to case basis, having regard to the nature of the complaint before it.”
The Court had also noted the submission made by the Petitioners Counsel that as per Section 321 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the Public Prosecutor or Assistant Public Prosecutor in charge of a case might, with the consent of the Court, at any time before the judgment is pronounced, withdraw from the prosecution of any person, either generally, or in respect of any one or more of the offences for which he is tried.
The Court had noted the order of discharge was passed without hearing the petitioner. Accordingly, the Court had directed the High Court to take up the writ petitions and finally decide the same within a week or two. The Court had asked all the parties to raise the objection before the High Court. The Court further noted “that since the impugned order was passed by the High Court without hearing the petitioner, the same is stayed, insofar as it pertains to the petitioner viz. SK Siouan, for a period of two weeks or till date or until further orders of the Division Bench of the High Court, whichever, is earlier.”
Thereafter, the Court had list the matter before the regular bench. On 06.04.2021, the matter came up before the bench of Justice NV Ramana, Justice Surya Kant & Justice Aniruddha Bose was hearing the case whereby Sr Advocate Siddharth Luthra & Sr Adv Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi appeared for the State & Sr Adv Mukul Rohatagi for the respondent Dipak Misra.
The Supreme Court had on that day adjourned the matter upon the request by Advocate Jayant Mohan since Mr Mukul Rohatagi was unavailable.
In the present matter, the petitioner was alleged to be a part of unlawful assembly in mass protests against the improper land acquisition measures undertaken by the Government of West Bengal during 2007-2009 to create a Special Economic Zone (SEZ) in Nandigram.
Read Also: Supreme Court to hear plea against some verses in Quran
“The petitioner was not impleaded as a necessary party originally before passing the order. Supian only became aware of the cases upon the knowledge of initiation of process to issue arrest warrants upon reinstitution of criminal cases,” the appeal said.