NEW DELHI: In a major flip of occasions, the Supreme Courtroom on Monday refused to entertain a plea looking for the switch of investigation and trial outdoors West Bengal in regards to the alleged sexual assault of ladies within the village of Sandeshkhali. The plea, which known as for the involvement of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) or a Particular Investigation Workforce (SIT), was dismissed by the apex courtroom on Monday.
The order was handed by a bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and Augustine George Masih on a petition filed by advocate Alakh Alok Srivastava. The petitioner had sought a route for organising a committee of three retired judges of the Excessive Courts consistent with the committee fashioned in Manipur circumstances.
Supreme Courtroom refuses to entertain plea looking for switch of investigation and subsequent trial outdoors West Bengal and probe by the Central Bureau of Investigation or a Particular Investigation Workforce (SIT) in reference to alleged sexual assault of ladies residing in village…
— ANI (@ANI) February 19, 2024
Petitioner Directed To Method Calcutta HC
Advocate Alakh Alok Srivastava, the petitioner on this case, has withdrawn the plea from the Supreme Courtroom, stated ANI. As a substitute, Srivastava has been directed to strategy the Calcutta Excessive Courtroom together with his issues. The Supreme Courtroom took observe of this choice, emphasizing that the Calcutta Excessive Courtroom has already taken cognizance of the matter.
#WATCH | Advocate Alok Srivastava, who filed PIL in Supreme Courtroom on the Sandeshkhali incident, says, “In PIL filed in Supreme Courtroom on Sandheshkhali incident, the courtroom refused to take cognizance of the matter as an analogous matter is pending earlier than Calcutta Excessive Courtroom. SC has… pic.twitter.com/mk1jLxl0A9
— ANI (@ANI) February 19, 2024
Discover Issued And Proceedings Stayed
Previous to this ruling, the Supreme Courtroom had issued notices to the involved respondents whereas additionally halting the proceedings of the Lok Sabha Privileges Committee in opposition to senior officers from West Bengal implicated within the Sandeshkhali protest. Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud led the bench that stayed these proceedings, acknowledging the pleas offered by Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal and Abhishek Manu Singhvi, who represented the West Bengal officers.
Criticism And Response
The Privileges Committee’s actions stemmed from a grievance filed by BJP Member of Parliament Sukanta Majumdar, alleging misconduct and brutality by police officers and district administration in Basirhat, North 24 Parganas District. Kapil Sibal, representing the officers, argued that the BJP MP violated Part 144 of the CrPC throughout his go to to Sandeshkhali, asserting that political actions can’t be protected beneath parliamentary privilege.
Authorized Problem
The petitioners, comprising senior officers from West Bengal, challenged the jurisdiction and legality of the Privileges Committee’s actions. They argued that the summons to look earlier than the committee was unwarranted and unconstitutional, compelling them to neglect their public duties. The petition emphasised that parliamentary privileges don’t prolong to actions carried out outdoors the legislative home.
Name For Courtroom Intervention
Looking for aid, the senior officers urged the Supreme Courtroom to declare the actions of the Lok Sabha secretariat as unlawful and unconstitutional. Moreover, they requested the courtroom to restrain additional proceedings primarily based on the February 15 Workplace Memorandum. Amid these authorized manoeuvres, the Sandeshkhali violence case continues to be a focus, highlighting the intricate interaction between authorized jurisdiction, parliamentary privilege, and the pursuit of justice.
