Manas Dasgupta
NEW DELHI, Mar 11: In a setback to the Mamata Banerjee government in West Bengal, the Supreme Court on Monday rejected a petition filed by the state government challenging the order of the Calcutta High Court to hand over the Sandeshkhali incident probe of alleged attack on some officials of the Enforcement Directorate (ED) on January 5 to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
A Bench of Justices B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta, however, ordered expunging certain adverse remarks and observations made by the Calcutta High Court against the State government and the police in its March 5 order asking the state police to hand over the arrested accused to the CBI.
A team of ED officials had come under a mob attack on January 5 at Sandeshkhali village when they went to the island to search properties linked to local strongman Sheikh Shahjahan.
The bench of Justice BR Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta also questioned the Trinamool Congress government why it took 50 days to arrest Shahjahan. The now-expelled Trinamool leader is in the CBI’s custody. Besides the case relating to the attack on the ED team, the strongman and his aides face allegations of land grab, extortion and sexual harassment.
The Bench quizzed West Bengal government represented by senior advocates A.M. Singhvi and Jaideep Gupta, as to why suspended TMC leader Shahjahan Sheikh was not promptly arrested after the January 5 attack.
“There was a stay on investigation. We went back to court asking for a clarification. It was clarified. Within one day, he was arrested… To say that the State Police is delaying the investigation is not borne out at all from the material. These kinds of allegations are very damaging,” Mr Gupta submitted.
Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju, for the ED, said the probe by the State Police was a farce. “In a case involving a ration scam running into crores of rupees, ED officials went to (the) house of this main accused. The door was not opened and they were beaten up. They tried to water down the case, insofar as the assault of the ED officer is concerned. They filed some other case. That’s why the investigation was stayed. Advocate General then agreed to add Section 307 (attempt to murder) of the Indian Penal Code,” Mr Raju said. He said the Bengal police made “no serious effort” to enter Shahjahan’s residence.
“There are several cases of harassment against him. He has been patronised by local police and politicians. (For) 57 days, he is not available. Then overnight he appears,” he said. Mr Raju also contested the state government’s argument that a pause in the investigation stopped state police from arresting Shahjahan.
Senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi, also appearing for Bengal government, flagged the high court’s remarks on state police. When Mr Raju said these observations may be deleted, Mr Singhvi replied, “If those observations are deleted, then what are the grounds?” “The observations against the police and the State government are deemed to be expunged,” the court said.
The allegations by residents of Sandeshkhali, an island in Bengal’s North 24 Parganas district, have raised a political storm in the state. Shahjahan, who is at the centre of these allegations, was arrested last week after he was on the run for 55 days. What followed was a dramatic tug of war between central agencies and state police for the strongman’s custody.
On one occasion, the state cops had refused to hand him over to the CBI pointing to the state government’s challenge to the high court in Supreme Court. The high court, however, held that its order had not been paused and directed Bengal police to hand over Shahjahan to CBI.
Mr Singhvi and Mr Gupta had questioned the High Court’s decision to set aside the formation of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) with State Police members and instead transfer the case to the CBI.
The bench, however, said, “We are therefore not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. Insofar as the directions, we are not inclined to entertain this SLP. However, the observations made with regard to the conduct of police and state govt shall stand expunged.”
The bench noted that the submission of Additional Solicitor General SV Raju submitted that he had no objection to the expunction of the remarks if the final order transferring the case to the CBI remained unchanged.
The bench also questioned the delayed arrest in the Shahjahan Sheikh case. Arguing to that, the advocate representing the government said, “Seven people were arrested. Only one person was not arrested. However, the state police are delaying the investigation…These kinds of allegations are very damaging.”
ASG SV Raju questioned the deficiencies in the state police’s handling of the case. He said, “First, there was no serious effort made by state police to enter the accused’s residence, which was bolted from inside…The police flouted this order and did not hand over the documents.” He further stated that there were several cases against him and Shahjahan Sheikh was patronised by local police and politicians.
“It is most respectfully submitted that the Impugned Order was pronounced by the Division Bench at 3 pm and uploaded on the High Court website by 3.30 pm (approx.), but the directions contained therein required the Petitioner/State Govt. to comply with such directions by 4.30 pm on the same day i.e. March 5, 2024 which effectively frustrated the Petitioner’s right to avail its remedy under Article 136 of the Constitution. In fact, the Advocate General appearing for the Petitioner State orally prayed seeking stay on the operation of the Impugned Order for three days to avail such legal remedy but the Division Bench not only rejected such prayer but refused to record the same in the Impugned Order,” the state government said.