[BREAKING] Supreme Court grants ad-interim stay on Calcutta HC order reviving Nandigram cases against Mamata Banerjee's Election Agent, SK Supian

The Supreme Court on Friday granted ad-interim stay against a Calcutta High Court order which had revived 14-year-old criminal cases against SK Supian who is the Election Agent of West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee in the upcoming Assembly polls (State of West Bengal v. Dipak Mishra)..A Bench of Justices Indira Banerjee and Krishna Murari said that the Calcutta High Court can continue hearing the matter on merits but stayed the operation of the March 5 order of the High Court which had directed revival of the criminal cases. The stay will operate for two week or until the High Court passes further orders, whichever is earlier, the Court said. ."The writ petitions are due to bee heard. All contentions may be raised in the writ before Calcutta High Court. However, since the order which affects the petitioner, herein, has been passed without hearing the petitioner, we deem it appropriate to pass an order staying the operation of the order dated 05-03-2021, only insofar as it pertains to the petitioner viz. SK Supian, for a period of two weeks till date or until further orders of the Division Bench of the High Court, whichever, is earlier," the Court ordered. .Supian approached the Supreme Court challenging a March 5 order of the Calcutta High Court reviving charges of unlawful assembly and violence against him in relation to the 2007 Nandigram violence. Supian had been discharged by the Magistrate in the those cases in February 2020..The High Court passed the order ex-parte on a public interest litigation filed by BJP leader Dipak Mishra seeking revival of those cases. .These cases were based on chargesheets filed in the context of mass protests against improper land acquisition measures undertaken by the Government of West Bengal during the years 2007-2009 to create a Special Economic Zone (“SEZ”) in Nandigram, West Bengal, where the Petitioner is also resident..Supian was alleged to have engaged in an unlawful assembly and had participated in violence. However, in 2020, the public prosecutor had filed applications in these cases for withdrawal of prosecution.Based on the same, Supian was discharged by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate in February 2020 under Section 321 of Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) in certain criminal cases.."There has been no trial or conviction in these cases due to lack of evidence and due to the wrongful basis for instituting these cases. That in February 2020, these cases were finally withdrawn upon application by the Additional Public Prosecutor and with the consent of the court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate in Midnapore, West Bengal by order dated February 10, 2020," the petition before Supreme Court said. .However, the Calcutta High Court reversed the decision to discharge the petitioner under Section 321 CrPC, it was pointed out. ."PIL was filed by self-interested and motivated persons who belong to a political party and were filed without notice to the Petitioner, who was an accused, in the cases so withdrawn and hence, directly affected by the same," said the appeal..Importantly, Supian took objection to the fact that the order was passed by High Court ex-parte without hearing him. .He contended that the High Court erred in passing the order which had the effect of reversing an order of discharge or acquittal of the petitioner without issuing notice to him and hearing him. .Supian stated that the re-institution of cases against him was impairing his ability to discharge his functions as an election agent under the Representation of People Act, 1951..Appearing for Supian, Senior Advocate Vikas Singh contended that it is an unprecedented and bizarre development which has disabled the election agent of the Chief Minister. "This is (related to) Nandigram violence. Trial court had accepted the Section 321 CrPC applications. Trial court stated that it has perused order withdrawing prosecution against people and accepted the same. Then BJP leader files a PIL in High Court and charges are revived ex-parte. I am election agent of the Chief Minister and I am completely disabled. This is unheard of and bizarre," he said. .Singh also pointed out that the petitioner before the High Court is a member of the BJP legal cell. "This is brazen and this man is a BJP man," said Singh. ."In Madras High Court, I had delivered a judgment in a PIL by a DMK member who wanted to transfer the Guthka scam probe and held that if real illegality is shown then we cannot shut our eyes," Justice Banerjee responded. ."Please see the timing. Order was passed in Feb and June 2020. Writ comes in March 2021. The timing is just before the West Bengal elections," Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra representing State of West Bengal replied. .Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, also appearing for State of West Bengal supported the appellant. "State government has been given powers by this very Court to withdraw such cases in political agitations. This order could not have been passed. It was said this decision of withdrawal vests with the APP or the policy decision of the state concerned. The Calcutta High Court has delivered a completely erroneous judgment," he argued. An elected government for the purpose of creating good will can decide to withdraw such cases and it's being decided in a PIL by an ex-parte order, he added. ."I don't know a single case in the annals of judicial history where a PIL has given such directions. Judge says horse having bolted now we close the door. This is completely reversing the order," Singhvi further said. .Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi appearing for the respondent, Dipak Mishra said that the case against the appellant is for murder and kidnapping. "Supian's plea should be dismissed with cost as they have lied before Supreme Court . State and Supian say withdrawal of cases dealt with mass agitation in Nandigram. The cases withdrawn are under Section 302, 364A and under explosives Act. Both pleas state falsehood," Rohatgi said. .He stated that all these were done at the behest of the State government. "They don't even file application under 321 and they say withdrawal will bring peace by letting go murder accused. Peace cannot be restored under Section 302 offence. This is a shocking case where such cases are being withdrawn," he submitted. When quizzed about the delay in filing the PIL by the Bench, Rohatgi replied that the discharge orders were passed "under the cloak of secrecy.""He is facing six cases. What use is it of saying BJP, BJP (respondent belongs to BJP). This is the manner they are letting out these people which includes goondas," he added. .The Court after hearing the parties said that it will not interfere with the hearing before the High Court. However, it agreed with the contention of the petitioner regarding how the order was passed by the High Court without hearing the petitioner. "The manner in which the order had been passed it is difficult to counter them. Nature of offence is also not mentioned," the Bench remarked. .The Court, therefore, stayed the operation of the March 5 order and protected Supian from coercive action for two weeks. .[Read Order]