- Supreme Court recently held that a PIL cannot be discarded because an individual belongs to a rival political party.
- The case is about a special leave petition (SLP) filed before the Supreme Court in the case of The State of West Bengal & Others v. Dipak Mishra. [SLP (Crl) Nos. 2669-2670/2021]
- The petition was filed by SK Supian, who was aggrieved by an order passed by the Calcutta High Court which reopened the criminal cases in which he was acquitted by a Magistrate Court.
- The special leave petition was heard by a division bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice Indira Banerjee and Justice Krishna Murari.
- The petitioner said that he was absolved by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate back in February 2020 from certain criminal cases which were filed against him on baseless and false charge sheets under section 321 of Cr.P.C.
- In the charge sheets, it was alleged that the petitioner had engaged in an unlawful assembly and participated in violent activities.
- In his plea the petitioner said that his personal liberty was violated, also the order by the HC was passed without giving him a chance to be heard and he only became aware of the order when arrest warrants were issued against him.
- The apex court granted interim relief to SK Supian, an election agent of West Bengal Chief Minister Mamta Banerjee.
- The Supreme Court granted interim relief to SK Supian with regards to FIR restored in the Nandigram violence case.
- Senior Advocates SM Singhvi and Vikas Singh appearing for the State of West Bengal contended that the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was filed by a person belonging to a political party with misleading reasons.
- The court in its observations for the above argument put forward by the senior advocates said that it is true that a court needs to scrutinize whether a particular PIL is in the public interest or to promote some other interest in the name of public interest.
- Nonetheless, the question of whether the litigation is bonafide or not is a different question and needs to be addressed by the court on a case-to-case basis having regards to the essence of the complaint before it.
- The apex court also observed that the Calcutta High Court passed the order of reopening the criminal cases against the petitioner without giving a chance to be heard or without even giving him notice and such an impugned order affects the petitioner.
- Thus an interim relief was granted by the Supreme Court on the order passed by Calcutta High Court and the SLP was dismissed.
Do you think the Supreme Court was right in pointing out the error made by Calcutta High Court? Yes or No Comment below.