In a major relief for BJP MLA Suvendu Adhikari, the Calcutta High Court in a latest, learned, laudable and landmark judgment titled State of West Bengal vs Suvendu Adhikari and Ors in MAT 993 of 2021 With IA No. CAN1 of 2021 and connected matters delivered as recently as on November 17, 2021 has refused to interfere with an order of a Single Bench of the High Court dated September 6, 2021 wherein criminal proceedings initiated against BJP MLA and Leader of the Opposition in West Bengal Assembly – Suvendu Adhikari who secured maximum limelight after he defeated Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee in Nandigram by a convincing margin had been stayed. Justice Rajasekhar Mantha had issued a stay order on proceedings initiated against Adhikari in respect of cases registered at Contai police station and the Nandigram police station on March 18, 2021. Against this order, the State of West Bengal had filed a batch of intra-Court appeals before a Bench comprising of Justice Subrata Talukdar and Kesang Doma Bhutia. The Bench held that, “This batch of analogous intra-Court appeals are held to be not maintainable.”
To start with, this brief, brilliant and balanced judgment authored by Justice Subrata Talukdar for a Bench of Calcutta High Court comprising of himself and Justice Kesang Doma Bhutia sets the ball rolling by first and foremost putting forth in the opening para that, “The above noted analogous appeals have been preferred against a common order dated 6th of September, 2021 in the writ petition, being WPA 11803 of 2021, passed by the Hon’ble Single Bench.”
In hindsight, the Bench then recalls in the next para that, “The Writ Petitioner in WPA 11803 of 2021, i.e. the Writ petition on which the common order dated 6th September,2021 of the Hon’ble Single Bench came to be passed, is the Respondent No.1 in two of the above noted analogous appeals being MAT 993 of 2021 and MAT 970 of 2021(respectively MAT-I and MAT-II). The writ petitioner is a political leader presently owing allegiance to a political party which is in opposition to the present ruling party of the State. The writ petitioner originally owed allegiance to the present ruling party and, inter alia, alleges that upon shifting his allegiance to the party presently in the opposition, at least six First Information Reports(FIRs) have been filed against him in four different police stations of the State. The writ petitioner alleges victimization and harassment by the State machinery as a counterblast to the change in his political allegiance.”
Needless to say, the Bench then states that, “The prayers in the writ petition are primarily protection from the vexatious criminal proceedings launched against the Writ petitioner and, in the alternative, since the writ petition has lost faith in the impartiality of the State machinery, to transfer investigation of the FIRs registered against him to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).”
To put things in perspective, the Bench then envisages in the next para that, “By the order impugned, the Hon’ble Single Bench was pleased to notice and record the details of the FIRs pleaded in the writ petition. Upon recording the details, the Hon’ble Single Bench found the writ petition to be maintainable and, was prima facie satisfied that in the series of FIRs complained of in the writ petition, the State machinery acted over-zealously and maliciously. Upon further recording of reasons for its prima facie satisfaction, the Hon’ble Single Bench was pleased to observe that the writ petitioner deserves invocation of his rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India for protecting him from implication in false criminal cases.”
As a corollary, the Bench then enunciates in the next para that, “Accordingly, the Hon’ble Single Bench was pleased to direct as follows:
“There shall be a stay of proceedings in respect of the Contai Police Station Case No. 248 of 2021 dated July 7, 2021 and the Nandigram Police Station Case No. 110 of 2021 dated March 18, 2021. The investigation into the other two Police Station cases i.e. Manicktala Police Station Case No. 28 of 2021 dated February 27, 2021 and Tamluk Police Station Case No. 595 of 2021 dated July 19, 2021, the investigation may go on but no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner. The petitioner shall cooperate in the investigations. Panskura Police Station Case No. 375 of 2021 and 376 of 2021 shall also remain stayed. The State shall furnish information as regards any further FIR registered against the petitioner. The State shall also obtain leave of this Court before 20 arresting the petitioner or taking with any coercive action against the petitioner in all such cases. The Investigating Authorities shall, as far as possible, considering the public responsibilities of the petitioner, accommodate him, if he is required to give any statement, from a place and time convenient to him. Learned Advocate General prays for stay of operation of the aforesaid order Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the prayer for stay is considered and refused. Let affidavit-in-opposition be filed within a period of four weeks from date. Reply, if any, be filed within a period of two weeks thereafter. Liberty to mention after completion of pleadings.””
Furthermore, the Bench then states that, “The appellants in the appeals, being respectively first the de facto complainant in one of the FIRs (MAT 993 of 2021) and the State of West Bengal represented by its prosecuting arm (MAT 970 of 2021) and (MAT 840 of 2021 – MAT-III), came under the legal obligation to answer the demurrer raised by Mr. Patwalia, Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner/ the respondent No.1, challenging the maintainability of the intra-Court appeals.”
Be it noted, the Bench then observes that, “Accordingly, the task of this Court has been prioritised to first address the point of demurrer and hence the maintainability of the appeals. Mr. Patwalia, foundationally relies on the law unambiguously laid down In Re: Ram Kishan Fauji Vs. State of Haryana and another, (2017) 8 SCC 833) to contend that appeals of the present ilk cannot be filed within the same Court before a Hon’ble Division Bench from the order of the Hon’ble Single Bench. The principal arguments may be summarised as follows:
First, connected to orders pertaining to criminal jurisdiction no intra-Court appeal lies.
Second, such intra-Court appeals are barred by the Letters Patent constituting the particular High Court.
Third, the interpretation on the exercise of criminal jurisdiction would turn on the nature of the reliefs granted and, not on the character of the Learned Tribunal granting such reliefs.
Fourth, only in the event by legislative fiat specific provisions of the Letters Patent are modified, the embargo on filing of intra-Court appeals can be lifted. In the absence of any legislation to the contrary, the embargo on filing intra-Court criminal appeals imposed by the Letters Patent would remain.”
Finally and far most significantly, the Bench then holds clearly, concisely and convincingly in this notable judgment that, “Having heard the parties and having considered the materials placed, this Court arrives at the following findings:-
A) That the primary reliefs granted by the Hon’ble Single Bench pertain to the exercise of Criminal Jurisdiction;
B) That the alternate relief of transfer of investigation to the CBI has not been considered on merits at this stage by the Hon’ble Single Bench;
C) That the ratio of In Re: Ram Kishan Fauji applies apropo the facts of this case.
D) That the Letters Patent of the High Court at Calcutta hence act as a bar to filing an intra-Court appeal.
E) That the ratio of In Re: Gopal Kumar Agarwal rests on the point of grant of the relief of transfer of investigation and, such relief being alternate and not under consideration by the impugned order, is hence not apropo the present factual scenario.
F) This Court has considered the demurrer on the touchstone of the nature of the jurisdiction exercised by the Hon’ble Single Bench and, not on the composition of the Hon’ble Single Bench sitting in Article 226 jurisdiction, by following the law laid down In Re: Ram Kishan Fauji.
In the backdrop of the above discussion and findings, this batch of analogous intra-Court appeals are held to be not maintainable. Parties are at liberty to apply before the appropriate forum/Court. All points on merits are left open to be decided by the appropriate forum/Court. MAT 993 of 2021 with IA No. CAN 1 of 2021 with MAT 970 of 2021 with IA No. CAN 1 of 2021 with 840 of 2021 with CAN 1 of 2021 stands accordingly disposed of. There will be, however, no order as to costs. Parties shall be entitled to act on the basis of a server copy of this Judgement and Order placed on the official website of the Court. Urgent Xerox certified photocopies of this judgment, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of the requisite formalities I agree.”
In conclusion, we thus see that the Bench of Calcutta High Court comprising of Justice Subrata Talukdar and Justice Kesang Doma Bhutia have advanced adequate grounds for refusing to interfere with the single Bench order that had stayed criminal proceedings against BJP MLA Suvendu Adhikari. It merits no reiteration that the appeals filed by the State of West Bengal against the single Bench order were thus held to be not maintainable. This clearly shows that the scales of balance have finally tilted exclusively in favour of Suvendu Adhikari and all the tall claims of the West Bengal State Government made here have fallen flat on the ground.
Sanjeev Sirohi
