19 Feb 2024 11:18 AM GMT
The Supreme Court on Monday (February 19) refused to entertain a PIL which sought a CBI/SIT investigation into the reports regarding the sexual assault of women in Sandeshkhali in West Bengal.
The Bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Augustine George Masih however granted liberty to the petitioner to approach the Calcutta High Court, which has already taken suo motu cognizance of the Sandeshkhali violence. The Bench opined that the High Court also has the power to constitute the SIT, and there cannot be dual forums or parallel proceedings.
It may be recalled that on February 13, the Calcutta High Court took suomotu cognizance of newspaper reports on alleged sexual harassment of women living in Sandeshkhali, West Bengal, and tribal lands that had been forcibly taken over.
The present Public Interest Litigation was filed before the Top Court by Advocate Alakh Alok Srivastava alleging inter-alia, complicity, and dereliction of duty on the part of the West Bengal police and the state police. It was stated that the State police is acting "hand in gloves" with the main accused, Trinamool Congress leader Shajahan Sheikh.
Against this backdrop, the petitioner had prayed for the transfer of investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation or a Special Investigation Team under the monitoring of the Court. Further, the transfer of the trial of the cases out of West Bengal was also sought.
Today, the petitioner, advocate Alakh Alok Srivastava, appeared in person before the Top Court.
Right at the beginning of the proceedings, the Counsel submitted:
“A very deeply disturbing incident has come to light where in Sandeshkali village in West Bengal, number of women have stated in media that they were picked from their house in night and they were raped by the local political leaders of the ruling party.”
During the hearing, it was also underscored that the majority of victims belong to the SC/ST category.
However, the Bench pointed out a suo motu case on the issue. At this, the Counsel averred that transfer of the trial of the cases out of West Bengal is not within the purview of the ongoing case in the High Court.
Nevertheless, the Bench was not inclined to intervene and told the Counsel that the High Court could consider the transfer of the case to the CBI.
“A learned single judge of the High Court has taken cognisance of this matter. Whatever reliefs you want within that cognisance, you can seek impleadment. Because local HC will be best to assess the situation...We understand your eagerness and sympathy for the victims etc. but monitoring of an investigation by this Court is completely different.,” Justice BV Nagarathna firmly stated.
Pursuant to this, the Counsel stressed that after the cognizance was taken by the High Court, the West Bengal CM as well as State's police made statements that no rape has taken place at all.
However, Justice BV Nagarathna responded, “That is a different thing. That is not evidence.”
When the counsel relied on the orders passed by the Supreme Court in relation to Manipur violence, constituting SITs and a committee comprising retired High Court judges to probe cases related to sexual violence against women.
The Bench clearly asked the counsel not to compare the Manipur violence case with the instant one.
"Don't compare this with Manipur. Manipur is still an ongoing thing," Justice Nagarathna said.
Highlighting the seriousness of the issue, the Counsel submitted:
“There is a person called Shajahan Sheikh, who is the ruling party president. He was raided by the ED on Jan 5th. ED members were attacked by his supporters and FIR was filed against the ED people who went to investigate him. Then only he absconded. When he absconded, these victims gathered some courage and they came forward…”
When the Bench reiterated that it was not inclined to entertain the matter, the counsel withdrew the plea with liberty to approach the High Court. The Bench pronounced the following order:
"...the petitioner who has appeared in person, after arguing the matter for some time, sought permission to withdraw this petition, filed under A 32, with liberty to seek reliefs before the Calcutta HC...Consequently, this WP is dismissed as withdrawn, serving liberty to the petitioner to seek appropriate relief before the Calcutta HC."
Case Title : Alakh Alok Srivastava v. State of West Bengal and others | W.P.(Crl.) No. 84/2024