Sandeshkhali Violence: SC Rejects Plea, Orders Petitioner To Approach Calcutta High Court

NEW DELHI: In a significant turn of events, the Supreme Court on Monday refused to entertain a plea seeking the transfer of investigation and trial outside West Bengal concerning the alleged sexual assault of women in the village of Sandeshkhali. The plea, which called for the involvement of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) or a Special Investigation Team (SIT), was dismissed by the apex court on Monday.

The order was passed by a bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and Augustine George Masih on a petition filed by advocate Alakh Alok Srivastava. The petitioner had sought a direction for setting up a committee of three retired judges of the High Courts in line with the committee formed in Manipur cases.

 

Supreme Court refuses to entertain plea seeking transfer of investigation and subsequent trial outside West Bengal and probe by the Central Bureau of Investigation or a Special Investigation Team (SIT) in connection with alleged sexual assault of women living in village… — ANI (@ANI) February 19, 2024

 

Petitioner Directed To Approach Calcutta HC

Advocate Alakh Alok Srivastava, the petitioner in this case, has withdrawn the plea from the Supreme Court, said ANI. Instead, Srivastava has been directed to approach the Calcutta High Court with his concerns. The Supreme Court took note of this decision, emphasizing that the Calcutta High Court has already taken cognizance of the matter.

 

#WATCH | Advocate Alok Srivastava, who filed PIL in Supreme Court on the Sandeshkhali incident, says, "In PIL filed in Supreme Court on Sandheshkhali incident, the court refused to take cognizance of the matter as a similar matter is pending before Calcutta High Court. SC has… pic.twitter.com/mk1jLxl0A9 — ANI (@ANI) February 19, 2024

 

Notice Issued And Proceedings Stayed

Prior to this ruling, the Supreme Court had issued notices to the concerned respondents while also halting the proceedings of the Lok Sabha Privileges Committee against senior officials from West Bengal implicated in the Sandeshkhali protest. Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud led the bench that stayed these proceedings, acknowledging the pleas presented by Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal and Abhishek Manu Singhvi, who represented the West Bengal officials.

Complaint And Response

The Privileges Committee's actions stemmed from a complaint filed by BJP Member of Parliament Sukanta Majumdar, alleging misconduct and brutality by police officials and district administration in Basirhat, North 24 Parganas District. Kapil Sibal, representing the officials, argued that the BJP MP violated Section 144 of the CrPC during his visit to Sandeshkhali, asserting that political activities cannot be protected under parliamentary privilege.

Legal Challenge

The petitioners, comprising senior officials from West Bengal, challenged the jurisdiction and legality of the Privileges Committee's actions. They argued that the summons to appear before the committee was unwarranted and unconstitutional, compelling them to neglect their public duties. The petition emphasized that parliamentary privileges do not extend to activities conducted outside the legislative house.

Call For Court Intervention

Seeking relief, the senior officials urged the Supreme Court to declare the actions of the Lok Sabha secretariat as illegal and unconstitutional. Additionally, they requested the court to restrain further proceedings based on the February 15 Office Memorandum. Amid these legal manoeuvres, the Sandeshkhali violence case continues to be a focal point, highlighting the intricate interplay between legal jurisdiction, parliamentary privilege, and the pursuit of justice.