Won’t interfere in house-arrest order of TMC leaders, says Supreme Court

NEW DELHI: The SC on Tuesday refused to interfere with the house-arrest order of two Trinamool Congress (TMC) ministers and another prominent MLA in connection with the 2016 Narada sting tapes, stating that their personal liberty could not be mixed up with the protests by chief minister Mamata Banerjee against their arrests by the CBI.

The bench of justices Vineet Saran and BR Gavai found no rationale behind the CBI’s petition before the apex court as it pointed out that if the agency was aggrieved about the protests by West Bengal’s CM Mamata Banerjee and its law minister, they should rather proceed against them under the suitable provisions of law instead of citing their demonstrations as reasons to cancel the relief granted to the TMC leaders.

“We don’t appreciate of such dharnas etc. But if a CM or a law minister is taking law into their own hands, should the accused be made to suffer? You can proceed against the persons who tried to take the law into their own hands...But we wouldn’t like to mix the liberty of a citizen with some acts of politicians. You can take actions available in law against the politicians but we won’t comprise the liberty of the citizens,” the bench told solicitor general Tushar Mehta, who appeared for the CBI.

Mehta sought to emphasise that the rule of law was a casualty in the state as the CM sat on a protest inside the CBI’s office on May 17 after the TMC leaders were arrested while the law minister camped at the CBI court with thousands of supporters. This prevented the CBI prosecutor to go to the court to oppose their bail, said the S-G, adding the issue involved was not just about bail or house-arrest but that a state administration was interfering with the course of justice. But the bench was categorical that the CBI required to make up its mind whether it was challenging the house-arrest order or not because the other issue about the CM’s protest must be pursued by the CBI in appropriate proceedings under the available provisions of law, if it so desired.

THE SC REFUSED TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER STATING THAT THEIR PERSONAL LIBERTY COULD NOT BE MIXED UP WITH THE PROTESTS BY CM