SC refuses to interfere with Calcutta HC order granting protection from arrest to Suvendu Adhikari

|HT|

The Supreme Court on Monday refused to interfere with the Calcutta high court order granting protection from arrest to Bharatiya Janata Party leader and West Bengal leader of opposition Suvendu Adhikari in connection with criminal cases lodged against him. On September 6 last year, a single judge bench of the HC had granted an interim stay on any coercive action against Adhikari in connection with criminal cases -- which were registered after he switched from the ruling Trinamool Congress to BJP. This order was challenged by the West Bengal government before a division bench, that refused to stay the order. Against this dismissal, West Bengal had appealed to the top court.

During Monday’s hearing, the bench of justices DY Chandrachud and AS Bopanna observed that this was the second case coming up against the same order. On December 13, the court had dismissed appeals filed by the West Bengal government and a complainant in one of the cases on the ground that the HC order was passed as an interim direction, pending final consideration of Adhikari’s petition. The top court’s order had permitted the state to file an application before the high court to vacate the stay. In the present appeal, the state government took fresh grounds questioning the dismissal of its letters patent appeal (LPA) by the HC’s division bench. The bench said, “Since the order of the single judge was assailed before us, the issue of maintainability of LPA pales into insignificance. Parties are to be governed by our order of December 13.”

Senior advocate Menaka Guruswamy, appearing for the state government, informed the Court that the issue raised in their appeal was similar in nature to a case already pending before the top court. She said, “the issue here is whether LPA can be moved in terms of a writ petition before the high court under Article 226 of Constitution. This question is pending consideration in the Anup Majee v CBI case pending before this Court.”

(Except for the headline and the pictorial description, this story has not been edited by THE DEN staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)