SC stays order reviving cases against Mamata aide

Press Trust of India

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Friday stayed a Calcutta high court order that resulted in the revival of several criminal cases against West Bengal chief minister Mamata Banerjee’s election agent in connection with the Nandigram protests against land acquisition by the state government from 2007-09.

A bench of justices Indira Banerjee and Krishna Murari said:

“Since the order which affects the petitioner (election agent) herein was passed without hearing him, we deem it appropriate to pass an interim order staying the operation of the order dated March 5, 2021”.

The petitioner, SK Supian, challenged the order passed by the high court on two PILs against the withdrawal of prosecution in various criminal cases connected with the protests over the alleged improper acquisition of land by the state to create a special economic zone (SEZ) in Nandigram.

Supian contended that he was not made a party in the PILs and the revival of the criminal cases has impaired his ability to discharge his functions as an election agent under the Representation of People Act 1951.

Singh alleged that a PIL was “filed by a BJP person” in the high court which passed the interim order. “By an interim order, the case was revived,” he said, adding, “I (petitioner) am the election agent of the Chief Minister and because of this order, I am virtually disabled”. “It is unheard of. There is no question of revival of case,” Singh said, adding that his client was impleaded as a party in the matter before the high court, but after passing an interim order without hearing him.

He said the cases relate to protests at Nandigram and later, the state government decided to withdraw these matters. “This high court order has to be stayed. Now, I (petitioner) have been impleaded as a party in the high court, I will go there and argue my case,” Singh said, adding the plea filed in the HC is “politically motivated”.

Senior advocates AM Singhvi and Siddharth Luthra, appearing for the state, also opposed the high court’s interim order. “You must stay the order (of high court) completely,” Singhvi said.

Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for a caveator, said both the pleas — one filed by the state and the other by Supian — should be dismissed with exemplary cost as they have “lied to this court”.