The Supreme Court on Friday asked the Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court to decide whether a two-year-old order restraining the West Bengal Police from registering cases against Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader Suvendu Adhikari should continue.
Suveddu Adhikari is Leader of Opposition in West Bengal assembly.
While asking the Chief Justice of Calcutta High Court to decide the issue, a bench comprising Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra, stayed July 20 order by a two-judge bench asking the police to treat a PIL as a complaint and inquire into it.
The Chief Justice expressed his unease with such blanket orders coming from the High Court.
The top court, after staying the July 20 order, asked the matter to be decided by a bench headed by the Chief Justice after senior advocate PS Patwalia appearing for Suvendu Adhikari told the bench that the High Court passed the order without giving Adhikari an opportunity to file his reply to the PIL targeting him.
However, senior advocate Jaideep Gupta appearing for one Soumen Nandy said that for the last two years Suvendu Adhikari was roaming freely making “hate speeches” and because of the High Court order no case can be registered against him.
Setting aside the July 20 order, the Chief Justice Chandrachud in the order said: “We request Calcutta High Court Chief Justice to hear the writ petition of July 20 afresh. The Chief Justice court shall be at liberty to pass orders in all pending proceedings after hearing the petitioner both on merits and maintainability and High Court shall not be trammelled by the September and December 2021 orders.”
By December 8, 2021, order Adhikari was protected from the registration of any FIRs. Senior advocate Jaideep Gupta told the bench that they were aggrieved by the December 2021 order more than the September 2021 order.
The top court order came while hearing an appeal by Suvendu Adhikari against the July 20 order passed by a division bench of the High Court which in a way vacated the protection that was granted to Adhikari from the registration of cases against him.
As senior advocate Patwalia made some averments relating to a judge, Jaideep Gupta said, “He is making allegations against a judge who is a man of great integrity … he is making these allegations without having the courage to say all this on record…he dare not.”
Jaideep Gupta said that the July 20 order was not a blanket order but saddled with conditions and instructions to police. Patwalia said “Once an FIR is registered the damage is done.”