Sandeshkhali Rape Controversy: SC Rejects CBI Inquiry, Stays Proceedings of Lok Sabha Privileges Committee

Manas Dasgupta

NEW DELHI, Feb 19: The Supreme Court on Monday refused to admit a petition seeking a CBI probe into the alleged mass rape case in Sandeshkhali in West Bengal and also stayed the proceedings of the Lok Sabha Privileges Committee summoning the West Bengal chief secretary and other officers on a complaint of breach of privileges filed by a BJP Member of Parliament for police preventing him to visit Sandeshkhali.

The petition demanding CBI inquiry filed by a lawyer on behalf of the victims, was turned down during the hearing, prompting the petitioner to withdraw the plea. The bench, comprising Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Augustin George Masih, expressed reservations about comparing the Sandeshkhali case to the situation in Manipur. They emphasized that the High Court, which had already taken suo-motu cognizance of the matter, was best suited to assess the situation and order a thorough investigation.

The High Court, acknowledging the seriousness of the matter, has taken the initiative to assess the situation independently. Recognizing its capability to order an SIT investigation, the High Court aims to ensure justice for the victims.

The complaint to the Lok Sabha speaker alleging breach of privileges was filed by BJP MP Sukanta Majumdar alleging “misconduct, brutality and life-threatening injuries to him” leading to the House committee summoning the West Bengal chief secretary and other officials. Mr Majumdar was reportedly injured as party workers clashed with police personnel when stopped from entering Sandeshkhali, where women have been agitating over alleged atrocities committed against them by Trinamool Congress leader Shahjahan Sheikh and his aides.

A three-judge Bench led by Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud also issued notice to the Lok Sabha Secretariat. The stay order spelt relief for the Chief Secretary and the other officers, who were scheduled to appear before the Privileges Committee on February 19. In an urgent oral mentioning, senior advocates Kapil Sibal and A.M. Singhvi, for the officials, questioned the very jurisdiction of the Privileges Committee to summon them.

Mr Sibal said the BJP MP was engaged in “political activity” not associated with his work as a parliamentarian. He had violated a prohibition order against ‘unlawful assembly’ under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He had climbed onto the bonnet of a police car and was pushed by fellow party workers. It was the police which had taken him to the hospital. Mr Sibal said the State had video evidence to back its submissions.

“Privilege is only applicable when an MP is obstructed or harmed in the course of his work or official duties as a Member of Parliament. Privilege is not available when the MP is not doing anything concerned with his duties. It certainly does not extend to the political activity of the MP outside the House,” Mr Sibal said. Mr Singhvi said if the “cloak of privilege extended to protect everything, then an MP cannot even be arrested for a crime.”

“Political activity can never be brought within the precincts of ‘breach of privilege’ powers of Parliament. How can that be? This is a clear misuse of the power of privilege,” Mr Sibal reiterated. The lawyers noted that the summons had extended to even the North 24 Parganas District Magistrate Sharad Kumar Dwivedi, Basirhat Superintendent Hossain Mehdi Rehman and Additional Superintendent Partha Ghosh.

Representing the Lok Sabha Secretariat, senior advocate Devashish Bharuka countered that the Lok Sabha Speaker had received a complaint from the BJP MP, and had decided to look into it. “Today is the first sitting of the Privileges Committee. It has only called the officials seeking oral evidence. They are not accused of anything. It is only a regular procedure… It does not harm anyone in any sense,” Mr Bharuka submitted. But the court refused Mr Bharuka’s request to not stay the Privileges Committee notice. The court listed the case after four weeks.

Rejecting the CBI probe plea, a bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Augustine George Masih said the Calcutta High Court was already seized of the matter. “The local High Court will be the best to assess the situation. Let there be no dual forums,” the bench said while granting liberty to the PIL petitioner to approach the High Court.

The Supreme Court, drawing parallels with the Manipur model, proposed the formation of a committee consisting of three retired judges from different states to oversee a fair and impartial investigation into the Sandeshkhali case. This suggestion aligns with the demands for an unbiased inquiry.

Alakh Alok Srivastava, the counsel representing the victims, filed a public interest litigation (PIL) in the Supreme Court. The PIL not only demanded compensation for the victims but also called for disciplinary action against the culpable police officers.

As the hearing began, petitioner-lawyer Srivastava said disturbing incidents have come to light where several women have claimed they have been raped. The top court said one of the judges of the Calcutta HC has also taken cognisance of the alleged incidents. It can consider transferring the case to the CBI, the bench said.

The petitioner said the situation in the State was so bad that even the CBI has to approach the SC to seek trial of post-poll violence cases outside West Bengal. “We understand your eagerness and sympathy for the victims but monitoring of an investigation by this court is completely different,” the bench said.

When Mr Srivastava referred to the top court having formed a committee of three former women high court judges to oversee the investigation, relief and remedial measures in Manipur, where also women were sexually assaulted, the bench said, “Don’t compare Manipur with this. Don’t make different cases comparable.” As the bench was disinclined to entertain the matter, Mr Srivastava withdrew the PIL. The matter was dismissed as withdrawn.

Meanwhile, a senior BJP leader in West Bengal hinted that the Prime Minister Narendra Modi was likely to visit Sandeshkhali to personally take stock of the situation arising out of the allegations of rape by the supporters of the local TMC strongman Shahjahan Sheikh. The leader of the opposition in the state Assembly Suvendu Adhikari said on Monday that preparations were underway and the dates for Mr Modi’s visit would be finalised by the PMO.

Adhikari, once a close aide of West Bengal chief minister Mamata Banerjee who joined the BJP in 2020, said he secured a special permission from the Calcutta high court to visit the Sandeshkhali village. “The permission was given on February 12 also but they imposed Section 144. Today I received a specific order and I will go there tomorrow and meet the families of the victims. Many BJP workers have been arrested, I will meet their family members,” Adhikari said.
“Mamata Banerjee will lose the Lok Sabha elections and that is why she is doing all this. She has not done any development work…They will not arrest (Sheikh Shahjahan) because they need goons during elections and they have given him protection,” the BJP leader said.

On Monday, a delegation of National Commission for Women led by chairperson Rekha Sharma visited Sandeshkhali to meet the victims. The NCW chief called for Mamata Banerjee’s resignation and imposition of President’s Rule in the state.

“After speaking with women in Sandeshkhali, it’s clear the situation is dire. Numerous women shared their harrowing experiences; one even reported being raped inside a TMC party office. We demand President’s Rule in Bengal, which we will also include in our report,” Ms Sharma said.

West Bengal minister Shashi Panja hit back at Ms Sharma saying, “Why didn’t she visit Madhya Pradesh’s Morena, where a pregnant woman was gang-raped and set ablaze? Why didn’t the NCW respond when female wrestlers protested against BJP MP’s alleged sexual misconduct? Why did the commission ignore complaints of atrocities against women in Manipur?”