NEW DELHI: In a major flip of occasions, the Supreme Court on Monday refused to entertain a plea searching for the switch of investigation and trial exterior West Bengal in regards to the alleged sexual assault of ladies within the village of Sandeshkhali. The plea, which referred to as for the involvement of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) or a Special Investigation Team (SIT), was dismissed by the apex courtroom on Monday.
The order was handed 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 route for organising a committee of three retired judges of the High Courts according to the committee fashioned in Manipur instances.
Supreme Court refuses to entertain plea searching for switch of investigation and subsequent trial exterior West Bengal and probe by the Central Bureau of Investigation or a Special Investigation Team (SIT) in reference to alleged sexual assault of ladies residing in village…
— ANI (@ANI) February 19, 2024
Petitioner Directed To Approach Calcutta HC
Advocate Alakh Alok Srivastava, the petitioner on this case, has withdrawn the plea from the Supreme Court, stated ANI. Instead, Srivastava has been directed to strategy the Calcutta High Court along with his issues. The Supreme Court took notice of this resolution, 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 involved respondents whereas additionally halting the proceedings of the Lok Sabha Privileges Committee towards senior officers from West Bengal implicated within the Sandeshkhali protest. Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud led the bench that stayed these proceedings, acknowledging the pleas introduced by Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal and Abhishek Manu Singhvi, who represented the West Bengal officers.
Complaint And Response
The Privileges Committee’s actions stemmed from a criticism filed by BJP Member of Parliament Sukanta Majumdar, alleging misconduct and brutality by police officers and district administration in Basirhat, North 24 Parganas District. Kapil Sibal, representing the officers, argued that the BJP MP violated Section 144 of the CrPC throughout his go to to Sandeshkhali, asserting that political actions can’t be protected beneath parliamentary privilege.
Legal Challenge
The petitioners, comprising senior officers from West Bengal, challenged the jurisdiction and legality of the Privileges Committee’s actions. They argued that the summons to look earlier than the committee was unwarranted and unconstitutional, compelling them to neglect their public duties. The petition emphasised that parliamentary privileges don’t prolong to actions carried out exterior the legislative home.
Call For Court Intervention
Seeking reduction, the senior officers urged the Supreme Court to declare the actions of the Lok Sabha secretariat as unlawful and unconstitutional. Additionally, they requested the courtroom to restrain additional proceedings primarily based on the February 15 Office Memorandum. Amid these authorized manoeuvres, the Sandeshkhali violence case continues to be a focus, highlighting the intricate interaction between authorized jurisdiction, parliamentary privilege, and the pursuit of justice.
