Thread by @barandbench

The #SupremeCourt to hear appeal by West Bengal govt against BJP leader #SuvenduAdhikari.

Sr Adv Anand Grover: Both the state and respondent no. 1 are not performing their duties.
Counsel: I am appearing for the real victim- the respondent.
Grover: He's not the victim.
*chaos ensues*
SC: Give us a minute.

SC: Yes, Mr Bandopadhyay.
Sr Adv Bandopadhyay: If your lordship come to page 19 of the order, in the instant case there is prima facie evidence of using state and police machinery to file complaints. How can the court come to this conclusion? The entire Bengal police is malicious

Bandopadhyay: prosecution?
SC: Have you filed a counter? That was your grievance.
Bandopadhyay: Nothing could be done.
SC: One of the allegation is theft of tapolene sheets and one is suicide of a police person.
Bandopadhyay: He's not on the FIR in this.

SC: Go to the single judge...
Bandopadhyay: Can I make one submission, the learned single judge
SC: This is a matter of single judge in 226. There should be intra court appeal
Bandopadhyay: Yes, yes. In view of the 2017 judgement, dismissed our appeal, that's not maintainable.

SC: Mr Bandopadhyay what you can do is this. File a return in front of the single judge and vacate the order.
Bandopadhyay: Kindly come to the order.

Bandopadhyay:Nandigram PS case, he's not been named in FIR. It is staged.
18/3/2021 investigation by other two police station might go on but no coercive action might be taken as you said in Niharika Infrastructure.
SC: In Niharika, HC had not given reasons.

Bandopadhyay: Kindly come to the prayer of the writ petition. Manektala, Nandigram, Kontai(2 FIRs), Tomluk PS cases are referred. There are 5 cases
Court has granted relief for 7 cases.

SC: Two cases are not subject matter of the challenge at all.
Bandopadhyay: Yes.
SC: Mr Salve and Mr Patwalia, Pan
two FIRs are not referred.
Salve: It's almost embarrassing to read FIRs like stealing 5k rs and gold chain by an affluent person.

Salve: Dr Dhawan coined the term 'regime revenge' that's exactly what's happen.
If you don't give reasons, you're said to be arbitrary, if you do that is also a problem.
I don't know why your lordship must hear them at all.
By the time hearing comes up I daresay 3 more cases will

Salve: come up.
Patwalia: The judge would hear the case whole day. To say the judge had the wrong list is very uncharitable to the Hon'ble judge. There are a series of cases against all 9.
The FIR is ridiculous- it says I was having dinner in a dhaba and two persons came and

Patwalia: stole my chain and they did it because if Suvendu.
The order reads bias and malicious prosecution cannot be ruled out in this case. This is after a month of hearing my lord.
They acted overzealously and maliciously the order says. Strategy devised to trap the petitioner

SC: We'll give you chance to file a response before the single judge.
*Chaos ensues*
SC: We cannot hear five counsels at once we're dictating order.
We will come back after lunch.

SC: Mr Bandopadhyay, are you done or do you have something to add?
Bandopadhyay: Please see the order. A blanket order is passed such that in future also nothing can be done.
The state shall also get leave of the court before arresting the petitioner in such cases.

Bandopadhyay: Can it be passed at all even by the writ court?
At this juncture what would be apparent is that, kindly come to page 65, can it be said to be malicious?
Members of such assembly are not taking precautions resulting in spread of the pandemic.

Bandopadhyay The assembly started to threaten the police personnel. Simply because he's BJP so it's malicious? He's entitled to all these protections?

Bandopadhyay: In case of mala fide one has to be made a party. It cannot be said in general. 'State police is managed' what does it mean? If I say TMC in power so CBI is managed, that'll be fine?

Bandopadhyay: if I have any bad intentions, I have to be made party. Not in this way. Investigation will reveal the result and appropriate criminal court can do its job.

Bandopadhyay: passing blanket orders without reasons to prevent arrest is against the procedure given by CrPC. Is it not the duty of the police if any complaint has been made by any person about cognizable offence; in Lalita Kumari case 2014 you have laid down the law..

Bandopadhyay: the registration of FIR is mandatory under S154 of the code.
Complaint has not been made by me. Complaints have been lodged by different persons and that discloses an offence then the police has to register a case or not?

Bandopadhyay: Can it be said to be mala fide in view of the judgement of SC.
I'm submitting to your lordship, excepting case in 15.1 there was no delay at all. How can there be preliminary enquiry? The reasons given by single judge are not sustainable in law.

Bandopadhyay: In every FIR a cognizable offence is made. Reason has been given is one thing but reason is sustainable in law or not is a different thing.
Under A226 ld single judge jumped to the conclusion that there is prima facie evidence. What evidence? Can FIR be used as..

Bandopadhyay:evidence? Who came to give the evidence.
Simply because he's from BJP, the court has to violate Lalita Devi case?
SC: Is there anything else? So we can listen to others also.
Bandopadhyay: Let us continue. He's not the only one in the complaints. Because of him..

Bandopadhyay: everyone is getting the advantage. I beseech your lordship to allow us to investigate the matter.
These are settled principles of law. Mala fide because I came from TMC to BJP?

Bandopadhyay:If he violation covid 19 guidelines, police should do nothing?
If he commits any sort of crime, police should not do anything? Panchkula I've said to your lordship, it is not the subject matter so no order can be passed. There court cannot pass an interim order

Bandopadhyay: I am sorry to say during my last 41 years of practice, I've never seen such a thing as the last paragraph of the order. Your lordships are well versed in law you'd also not have seen such an order.
If I discharge my obligation in view of SC's Lalita Devi case,

Bandopadhyay: and a cognizable case is made, am I supposed to do my duty or not?
I have shown you the hooliganism, it is in the FIR. Ld judge just saw he has come from TMC to BJP. He is also a person, he is not a saint.
Panchkula PS should be set aside.

Bandopadhyay: Kindly allow us to investigate subject to any conditions put by your lordship.
SC: Who are you arguing for?
Sr Adv Meneka Guruswamy: We are both for West Bengal.
SC: We cannot have two counsels. One counsel for one side.
Guruswamy: I'm supplementing

Guruswamy: I'm also representing the state in 15.1.
Dr Adv Anand Grover: I'm representing the wife of the person who committed suicide. 10:16 I get a call that husband will shirt and go. 11:20 I get a call that husband is hospitalised on 13/8/21.
FIR is registered in Kontai.

Grover: Arrangements are being made to shift my husband to Apollo in Kolkata but ambulance doesn't come on time. Husband succumbs to injuries
The post mortem report says he died due to bullet injury. My case is not political. Judge had stayed this case too.

Grover: No other injury is seen. All preserved and handed over to state FSL to determine possibility of suicide.
FSL cannot determine just because it's a bullet injury that it's suicide.
If I shoot myself close to the brain, there has to be gunshot residue on my head. It is not..

Grover: at all detected. The government hasnt done anything. It's true that I made a complaint after election but the case has not been investigated. This is not political. I have got nothing to do with any political party. I could not have made a complaint when he was in power..

Grover:I am a poor woman, my husband was a security officer. The FIR doesn't mention the name of the respondent. Why should I come in the crossfire between BJP and TMC?
My brother in law who saw the body said it could not have been done by my husband.

Grover: During the course of 2/3 years, people came to my house and asked about the phone call. That made me suspicious.
My case stands out of the 5.

SC: yes, Mr Salve?
Salve: You're reading the order where mala fide was the issue. I wasn't at the HC but going by what Mr Patwalia said, it seems uncharitable to say that the judge after one month of hearing jumped to a conclusion.

Salve: there are two ways in which you can deal with the matter- constitutional court has the power to protect the person. If someone else would've said I would've said it's superficial to cite Lalita Kumari. Of course, FIR is not evidence but a string of FIRs.

Salve:When things like this happen, it bothers the judge's conscious and he said you come back to me. Is this constitutional power to be taken back from the HC judge?
Look at the this complaint of 2018 coming in 2021.

SC: What is that Panchkula FIR?
Salve: I have the FIR here, if necessary I can file..
SC: Just tell the gist
Salve: He contested against the incumbent CM and that became a big prestige issue. Complainant stopped for tea at 7 pm. A convoy arrived, on instructions of the R1,

Salve: they stole his 5k and a gold chain. There's a series of cases filed by a number of people. One is Mr Adak. The court is told don't hear for interim orders when it is pending before the SC.
First of all, why did the judge give reasons? Your lordship as said..

Salve: that it must reflect the application of mind.
He could've said we'll come back in 4 days with counter affidavit. Matter was heard over a month, the AG could've told the judge to put a counter.
When you push a court to give reasons otherwise I'm not agreeable to anything,

Salve: then what can the judge do.
Salve: We can apply the same disciple to all. Mr Patwalia won't argue
Guruswamy: When the HC is hearing a matter on quashing or staying, can they conduct a mini enquiry? your lordship, especially Mr Chandrachud, said that is cannot be done.

SC: This was about disapportionate asset. That's when we said you can't do that.
Apart from this what else?
Guruswamy: My friends Mr Salve and Patwalia said that HC heard 5 cases because 2 they did not have documents. If it was said there's no suicide note, should that not be..

Guruswamy: investigated?
SC: What took you three years?
Guruswamy: We were examining 40 witnesses and we were arriving at a conclusion. Each of these cases, investigation was happening.
Please look at this, just 15.1. the body was found in the garage of Mr Salve's client, should

Guruswamy: he not be a witness? We are not accusing but as a witness?
SC: Mr Patwalia do you have to add anything?
Salve: I have something to say. If 2018 FIR is investigating, 2021 must be done away with. You can't have two FIRs. The state has tripped on its two left feet

Guruswamy: There is one FIR.
Patwalia: She's wrong.
Salve: one minute please. Not line by line. Some rules have to be maintained.
This is what happens when State argues out of record.
Guruswamy: It's on record
Salve: I won't go line by line. You finish then I will speak

Salve: I'm getting to old for this. I'll argue when my friend is done
SC: Ms Guruswamy is done.
We'll hear for a minute Nd take a call
Salve: Is our single judge not good enough so thar SC must interfere? That's the point today.

SC: this matter arises from the order of a single judge of HC of Calcutta.
The single judge has permitted affidavits in opposition to be filed in 4 weeks and the reply in any within 2 weeks therafter. As of datw, WB and IO are yet to file reply.
The observation of HC prima facie

SC: are in support of ad interim stay granted. The SLP arises out an interlocutory power, we are not inclined to use special power under S136. We leave it open to the petitioner to file affidavits in opposition. File under 226 and clear expeditiously.

SC:If that's not possible put affidavits. The HC will take it up for final disposal.
Grover: I am not a party, could you give a direction that I be made a party.
SC: You just have to put a formal application and that will happen.
Bandopadhyay: One thing kindly record..

Bandopadhyay: your lordships have not gone into the merit.
SC: This court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the issue.