In New Delhi, the Supreme Court raised inquiries on Monday regarding the West Bengal administration’s move to contest a directive for transferring the investigation to the CBI concerning allegations of widespread sexual exploitation of women and illegal land acquisition in Sandeshkhali, purportedly involving a prominent TMC member, Sheikh Shahjahan, and others.
A M Singhvi, a senior counsel representing the West Bengal government, pleaded before a bench presided over by Justice B R Gavai, requesting a postponement of the case for a few weeks as his client possesses crucial information that could not be compiled and submitted along with the state’s petition. Singhvi stressed that the issue lies between the state and the court, urging the bench to grant a brief delay. The bench agreed to revisit the matter in July. “The information might hold relevance, and the court might contemplate rescheduling the matter in two or three weeks,” Singhvi asserted.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta implored the court to issue a directive prohibiting the use of the state government’s plea during this period. Singhvi countered, questioning how he could exploit the pendency when he had filed a special leave petition.
The bench, comprising Justice Sandeep Mehta alongside Justice Gavai, clarified that the high court’s order solely pertained to investigating the land acquisition accusations. “We shall specify that the adjournment is at your request, and the pendency of the SLP could prolong the proceedings in the high court,” Justice Gavai informed Singhvi.
Singhvi clarified that he did not intend to utilize the pendency of the SLP. Senior advocate Jaydeep Gupta, also representing the West Bengal government, sought a one-week extension, proposing the matter be listed for the following Monday to allow the state to present additional evidence.
The bench acknowledged Singhvi’s statement regarding the non-utilization of the petition’s pendency to prolong proceedings elsewhere. Mehta urged the court to further stipulate that it should not be exploited for any other purpose. “The petition shall not serve any purpose,” Justice Gavai declared. Gupta cautioned against such broad terms, suggesting potential complications. Mehta insinuated that the state harbored ulterior motives. Gupta refuted this, asserting transparency. Justice Gavai suggested the state’s counsel argue the case, emphasizing the state’s obligation to protect private interests.
Gupta defended the state against unjust criticism, stating that it had taken necessary action. Justice Mehta proposed seeking redressal in the high court if the state felt aggrieved. Gupta clarified the state’s grievance, leading to the apex court’s involvement. After deliberation, the bench scheduled the matter for further proceedings in July 2024.
The Calcutta High Court had previously directed a CBI investigation into the allegations of sexual exploitation of women and land grabbing involving suspended TMC leader Shahjahan and others in Sandeshkhali, North 24 Parganas district.