West Bengal's Petition for Protecting Private Interests in Case Challenged by SC

The Supreme Court questioned why the West Bengal government intervened in the Sandeshkhali case, where allegations of crimes against women and land grabbing are being investigated. The court expressed concern over the state's support for private individuals in the matter. Despite the state's argument of defending comments made against it in a high court order, the court suggested that the state seek expunction of remarks there instead. The matter was adjourned for July, with the understanding that the pendency of the appeal would not delay proceedings in the high court.

The Supreme Court on Monday asked the West Bengal government as to why the state should come in as a petitioner for ''protecting the interest'' of some private individuals in the Sandeshkhali matter.

The apex court's observation came when it was hearing the state government's plea challenging the Calcutta High Court's April 10 order which directed a CBI investigation into allegations of crimes against women and land grabbing in Sandeshkhali.

''Why should the state come in as a petitioner for protecting the interest of some private individuals?'' a bench of Justices B R Gavai and Sandeep Mehta asked.

The counsel appearing for the state said it was aggrieved by some comments made in the high court order.

''There are comments about the state government and that is unfair because the state government has taken full action,'' the counsel said.

The bench said the state can go to the high court and seek expunction of remarks if it is aggrieved by that.

''I (state) am aggrieved therefore, I am before your lordships,'' the counsel said.

The bench posted the matter for hearing in July and made it clear that pendency of this petition will not be used as a ground for any purposes.

Senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi, who appeared for the state, said at the outset that the matter may be taken up after a couple of weeks because they have some very important information which they want to file.

''This is an appeal where findings have been given. These findings need to be challenged,'' he said.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta requested the bench that pendency of this petition be not used anywhere.

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

The bench observed if the other side files a contempt plea, the state may go and tell the high court that the apex court is seized of the matter.

Singhvi said he was only saying that the plea be taken up for hearing after two weeks.

''The order is only to investigate the allegations of land grabbing...,'' the bench observed.

Singhvi said, ''There is much to be said''.

The bench said, ''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 state's counsel said the matter could be listed on next Monday as they want to file some material on record.

''What prevented you from doing it with the SLP? This is not fair,'' the bench observed.

Mehta said one can understand if the accused are aggrieved by the high court order, but how can the state be aggrieved.

While posting the matter for hearing in July, the bench said, ''The atmosphere will be conducive after July.'' In its plea before the apex court, the state government has said the high court's order demoralised the entire state machinery, including the police force.

''The high court in a very generic order directed the State to provide the required support to the CBI without any guidelines, which amounts to usurping the powers of the state police to investigate any cognisable offence in the Sandeshkhali area, even if the same is not related to the allegations levelled by the PIL petitioners,'' the plea said.

The CBI is already investigating the case of attack on the Enforcement Directorate officials in Sandeshkhali and has registered three FIRs related to incidents on January 5.

Noting that the investigation will be monitored by the court, the high court had directed the CBI to file a comprehensive report on the alleged illegal conversion of agricultural land into water bodies for pisciculture after conducting a thorough inspection of revenue records and physical inspection of land alleged to have been converted.

The high court had also directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to investigate allegations of crimes against women and land grabbing in Sandeshkhali and submit a comprehensive report to it on the next date of hearing.

It had directed that the matter will be heard again on May 2, the date on which the CBI was asked to file the report.

ED officials were attacked on January 5 by a mob when they went to Sandeshkhali to search the premises of now-suspended Trinamool Congress leader Shahjahan Sheikh in connection with a ration distribution scam case.

Around 600 complaints in the form of affidavits, including those of alleged sexual atrocities, land grabbing and other crimes such as assault and destruction of property, have been submitted before the high court by petitioner-lawyer Priyanka Tibrewal.

The high court had said it decided to hand over to the CBI the probe with regard to allegations and complaints of people of Sandeshkhali as the central agency is already investigating the attack on ED officials there.

(This story has not been edited by Devdiscourse staff and is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)