New Delhi: Supreme Court on Monday questioned West Bengal govt for challenging a Calcutta HC order for a CBI probe into allegations of land grab, sexual assault and violence in Sandeshkhali and asked whether the state wanted to protect private persons accused in the case.
At the outset of the hearing, senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for West Bengal, sought adjournment saying the state wanted to place some important information regarding the case before the court which was very relevant. A bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta, however, asked the state why it had challenged the HC order. “Why should the state come as a petitioner for protecting the interest of some private individual?” the bench asked.
Responding to the court’s query, senior advocate Jaideep Gupta, also appearing for the state, said HC had made adverse remarks against the state govt and that was the reason for challenging the verdict. He said it was unfair on the part of HC to pass observations because the govt had taken full action. The court, however, asked him why the state did not approach HC to get the remarks expunged.
The bench deferred the hearing to after the summer recess in July and made it clear that pendency of the state's appeal in the SC would not be used as a ground for any purpose, which means the CBI probe can proceed. The main accused in the case is Trinamool Congress’ Sheikh Shahjahan who has been suspended from the party.
While adjourning the hearing to July, the bench said in a lighter vein that the atmosphere would be more conducive for hearing at that time, referring to the fact that general elections would be over by then. On April 10, Calcutta high court had ordered a CBI probe into the Sandeshkhali case. It also decided to monitor the investigation.
Challenging HC order, the state said in its appeal, “The actions of the state govt in the present matter have been completely overlooked, while political voices have been given supremacy in a court proceeding, which not only vitiates the matter at hand, but further will lead to biased investigation. HC heavily relies on the report of National Commission for Scheduled Tribes and numerous affidavits of alleged victims to pass the directions, whereas the said report is not conclusive as the state is permitted to file its objections again st the report.
