New Delhi: Taking a critical view of the timing and intent behind multiple criminal proceedings, the Calcutta High Court has quashed 15 FIRs lodged against West Bengal Leader of Opposition Suvendu Adhikari, holding that many appeared “manifestly attended with mala fide” and driven by “political hostility.”
The court also ordered that the remaining investigation in four cases, including an alleged job recruitment scam, be handed over to a Special Investigation Team (SIT) comprising officers from both the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the State Police.
In a 169-page judgment delivered last week, Justice Jay Sengupta underscored that the “barrage of cases” filed against the BJP leader after he defected from the Trinamool Congress (TMC) in December 2020 raised serious doubts about the bona fides of the state’s actions.
Coming less than five months before the Bengal elections, the ruling is one of the strongest judicial indictments of alleged political misuse of police machinery in recent years. The critical remarks are likely to provide the opposition Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) an opportunity to accuse Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee of misusing the state machinery to target and harass opposition leaders in Bengal.
At the same time, the high court has also lifted a protection granted to Suvendu in 2022 against registration of FIRs against him. The administration can now lodge fresh FIRs with out HC’s nod.
Political shift
Adhikari, 54, had shifted to the BJP camp on 19 December, 2020—just months ahead of the 2021 Assembly elections in which he defeated Mamata in his stronghold in Nandigram.
In his petitions, Mamata’s protege-turned-rival claimed he was subjected to a “barrage of false criminal cases” as punishment for switching parties, accusing the TMC government of “trampling upon his rights and liberties by misusing its powers over the police machinery.”
The court, too, noted the timing of these prosecutions. “Before the date of such shifting of allegiance, no criminal case had been started by the State during the period between the date of coming into power of the present ruling political dispensation in 2011 till the date of the petitioner shifting allegiance.”
It went on to remark that the sudden wave of FIRs after Adhikari’s defection raised clear doubts about intent. “If so many cases could be started against the present petitioner after shifting of political allegiance during such a short span of time… one would be at a loss to ponder whether the petitioner is a habitual offender or falsely implicated for shifting political allegiance.”
The court’s central finding rested on the legal principle that criminal proceedings can be quashed when they are “manifestly attended with mala fide” or “maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused.”
Justice Sengupta observed that direct proof of such malice is rare, and that courts must infer intent from surrounding circumstances.
Referring to the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Haji Iqbal vs State of Uttar Pradesh case, the judge emphasised that courts must “look into the FIR with care and a little more closely” to determine whether proceedings are “manifestly frivolous or vexatious.”
Also Read: Behmai massacre to Salman Khan hit-and-run, why case diaries are ‘backbone’ of police probes
Malice, lack of offence
Three identical FIRs which alleged Adhikari had threatened voters during a municipal election campaign were quashed as the court found that all of them were filed on the same day, within minutes of each other, and were “exact replicas” in wording. It held that the allegations were clearly malicious and quashed the proceedings.
For instance, a 2021 FIR regarding the death of Adhikari’s security guard—filed nearly three years after the incident—alleged murder under Sections 302/120B of the erstwhile Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The FIR merely expressed “suspicion” over an ambulance delay without asserting murder, it said, adding that such a vague complaint could not sustain a homicide charge, calling it a product of ‘political animus’.
Several FIRs of Nandigram, Tamluk, Kulti, and Nandakumar—registered between 2021 and 2022—were quashed after no offensive content or unlawful intent were found in Adhikari’s public speeches.
“Expressing dissatisfaction and even grudge regarding alleged partisan attitude and high-handedness of public officers would not necessarily tantamount to criminal intimidation,” the HC said on the Tamluk case, which alleged incitement of religious hatred.
Similarly, the Nandakumar case was considered not fit to attract Section 153A (promoting enmity between different groups) of IPC, as “urging one’s community to consolidate does not necessarily incite hatred.”
In the above-mentioned case from 2022, a lawyer had alleged that Adhikari during inauguration of Kali Puja had tried to instigate communal tension by giving speech against a particular community.
As for the FIR related to an attack on the TMC party office three years ago, the court found no overt act attributable to Adhikari. Similarly, the HC dismissed a defamation and IT Act FIR, noting that “there is no question of defamation of a political party” under the law.
Hybrid SIT
While quashing 15 FIRs, the high court directed that the SIT probes the remaining cases concerning an alleged fake job recruitment scam using Adhikari’s name.
Although Adhikari was not named as an accused, it said, transferring the probe to an SIT was necessary “to instill public confidence.” The investigation will be monitored by the jurisdictional court to ensure transparency.
The judge observed that given the “mutual mistrust of both the State and Central agencies,” this hybrid SIT was the most balanced arrangement to ensure fairness and efficacy.
The counsels for the Bengal government argued that Adhikari’s allegations of mala fide were “bald and baseless,” insisting that the police were bound to register FIRs once cognizable offences were disclosed. It also questioned the maintainability of Adhikari’s petitions, which clubbed multiple FIRs into two writ petitions.
The court rejected both objections, reiterating that “procedural law is the handmaid of justice.”
Justice Sengupta also criticised the state for its inconsistent stance, pointing out that it had conceded that some FIRs were unlikely to result in charge sheets. “It is very strange indeed that the state…could take such a cavalier stand,” the judge observed.
(Edited by Tony Rai)
Also Read: A Rajasthan king’s estate goes to Khetri trust, just as he wanted. Inside the 40-yr battle royale