The Calcutta High Court on Monday reserved its decision on West Bengal Leader of Opposition and BJP MLA Suvendu Adhikari’s Public Interest Litigation (PIL), which sought the NIA/CBI investigation into the incidents of violence that occurred in the state during the Ram Navami procession.
After hearing the arguments of the Advocate General and counsels for the other petitioners who have filed similar petitions before the HC, the bench of Acting Chief Justice T. S. Sivagnanam and Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya reserved its order.
Before the Court today, Advocate General Soumendra Nath Mookherjee opposed the NIA’s request for an investigation into the violence, arguing that the state police are already investigating the matter and that an NIA probe can be ordered only if there is sufficient material and satisfaction from the Centre that it is a fit case for ordering an NIA probe.
To this, Acting Chief Justice Sivagnanam stated that the situation appeared to be severe because the reports prima-facie indicate that the violence was pre-planned, and thus a central probe agency would be better placed to investigate the matter.
On the other hand, the ASG representing for the Centre said that if blasts occur and explosives are utilized, the NIA act is automatically attracted and it becomes the Centre’s discretion to order an NIA probe suo moto.
Against this backdrop, taking into account the reports filed by the official authorities, averments in the writ petitions, and the state government’s report, the Court observed that the police had to disperse the crowd using pellet guns and tear gas shells, indicating that the situation was serious and that it could be a case of large-scale violence.
“Reports prima facie show that they (violent incidents) were all pre-planned. There is an allegation that stones were thrown from rooftops; certainly, stones could not have been transported to the rooftop in 10-15 minutes. There was a lapse in intelligence. The issue is twofold. The first question is if it is between two groups. Another possibility is that a third group is taking advantage of the situation. If such group is involved, a central agency should look into it because it is difficult for state police to find out. Who has arrived to take advantage? Someone would have started the fire, started the ball rolling, so you can’t probe unless a central agency comes,” the bench observed.
The Bench also noted that swords, bottles, broken glasses, and acid were used in the violence, and that access to the internet was restricted, demonstrating how widespread the violence was.
Importantly, the Court considered past occurrences of violence in the state as well as subsequent Court rulings and observed, “Within 4-5 months, the state has received 8 orders of the High Court, all of which concern violence during religious events. Is it not a reflection of something else? I have never seen so many orders in my 14 years as a Judge. Is it police incompetence, intelligence failure, sensitization of lower-level personnel, or what?”
Furthermore, when the Court asked the AG why state reports do not mention bombs being thrown while the incident was widely covered in the media, the AG denied that any bombs were thrown. He stated that the charges in the writ petitions about the bombing and burning of houses were false.
Other counsel also testified before the Court, claiming that the Chief Minister of the State made statements partitioning state areas based on religion. Another attorney argued that the State Police did not use the Explosive Substances Act in order to avoid the scheduled violations.
The Court reserved its orders after hearing counsel for all parties.
