Sushree Mohanty
The Supreme Court has as of late pronounced that a Public Interest Litigation cannot be set aside simply because the applicant is associated with an opponent political party. The Court said that the individual with political affiliations are, as much qualified to record public interest prosecution as some other individual. The statements have been made by the Court in its request granting relief to Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee’s political representative SK Supian corresponding to matter of restored First Information Reports against him in Nandigram violence case.
While taking note of that fact, the Court said it needed to analyze if the pea is truly in the public interest or to propel some other interest under the facade of public interest. The two bench judge comprising of Justice Indira Banerjee and Justice Krishna Murari stated that the Court’s observation on whether or not the suit is genuine or not is an alternate issue which must be inspected by the Court on a case to case premise, having respect to the idea of the complaint before it.
The Court gave out the statements in wake of the entries made by applicant’s Counsel Sr Adv Vikas Singh and Sr Adv AM Singhvi representing the State of West Bengal. The counsel presented that the Public Interest Litigations were filed by individuals belonging to opposition political party and for slanted reasons and therefore the pleas should have been dismissed. Concerning applicant’s contentions in regards to the Public Prosecutor or Assistant Public Prosecutor responsible for the case withdrawing from the indictment of any individual with Court’s assent, the Court stated that it need not look into the question at this stage.
“At this stage we need not go into whether or not the Public Prosecutor/Assistant Prosecutor concerned applied his mind to the charges against the denounced or whether current realities and conditions of the case justified the release of the individual.” the Court has noticed.
The Court further took notice that as the request impacts the applicant and was passed without hearing him, it considered it justified passing a stay order on the request dated March 5, 2021 so as to allow the applicant a time of about fourteen days till date or until the plea is heard by the High Court.
The current Special Leave Petition has been recorded by Sk. Supian, who contended that the he was aggrieved by the pronouncement by the Calcutta High Court on 05.03.2021 in an appeal, which was heard without issuing him any notification, being impeded, or a chance to be heard. This resulted in re-filing of criminal matters against him in which he was acquitted in
February 2020.
The Petitioner has expressed that he was released by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate in February 2020, under S. 321, Code of Criminal Procedure, in certain criminal cases. As indicated by the applicant, the case against him alleged that he was was involved in an unlawful gathering and had taken part in the violence. In February 2020 and June 2020, the public investigator had documented applications in these cases for withdrawal of cases.
The High Court in two pleas Dipak Misra v. Province of West Bengal and Ors., and Nilanjan Adhikary v. Territory of West Bengal and Ors., over ruled its decision to indict him. Supian in his supplication asserted that his freedom has been biased, as he was not notified prior to passing of the request, and was conceded no chance to be heard by the High Court. He got aware of the orders only post the commencement of the process to issue warrants against him and became aware of the case being reinstituted against him by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Contai.