Suvendhu Adhikari’s plea regarding his provocative remarks: SC refuses urgent listing and lists the matter on August 4

Today, the Supreme Court (SC) of India refused urgent listing for a petition filed by Suvendhu Adhikari, BJP MLA, and West Bengal Opposition Leader, against the Calcutta High Court’s order. The HC’s order allowed FIR registration against Suvendhu Adhikari for allegedly making provocative remarks during the West Bengal Panchayat elections. The case was mentioned by Advocate Bansuri Swaraj before the SC bench held by Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul. The bench apprised that “It will be listed on August 4” and declined an advance hearing. The advocate further tried to persuade the bench for an earlier date stating that “he is in a precarious situation”. The counsel submitted “I was protected by the two orders of the High Court by which no further FIRs should be registered against me… This court upheld that... The High Court is effectively sitting on a review of this court now.”

Earlier on 20th July 2023, the Calcutta HC directed the West Bengal Police to consider a petition before the Court. While hearing the matter then, HC stated that “Article 361 of our Constitution grants immunity only to the President of India and the Governor of a State from criminal prosecution. Section 41(d) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 says that an injunction cannot be granted to restrain any person from instituting or prosecuting any proceeding in a criminal matter… The said orders are not to be interpreted as preventing registration of any criminal complaint or first information report against the said respondent for any subsequent event, act, transaction, or facts.” This was the reason BJP MLA Adhikari moved to the SC. 

In his plea, he contended that HC gave the order without hearing him or letting him file a reply. The plea stated, “It is also imperative to mention that the interim relief granted by way of the impugned order, is actually the main prayer… at this stage (it) can have serious ramifications and result into registration of various other FIRs against the Petitioner.” The HC bench noted, “Now if the interpretation of these two orders is that the respondent no. 3 has been given immunity equal to that of the President of India or the Governor of a State against criminal prosecution it would only be an absolutely erroneous interpretation of the said orders.”