SC overturns Calcutta HC's order issuing CBI inquiry into attack on Minister Nisith Pramanik's convoy

The High Court's decision to investigate the attack on Nisith Pramanik's convoy was made following a PIL filed by Suvendhu Adhikari, a Member of the Legislative Assembly and Leader of the Opposition in the West Bengal Assembly.

New Delhi:The Supreme Court of India on Thursday overturned an order by the Calcutta High Court that called for a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe into an attack on the convoy of Nisith Pramanik, the Minister of State (Home), in Cooch Behar district in February 2023. The Supreme Court bench led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud has asked the High Court to reconsider its decision and to determine whether the case requires a CBI investigation based on the material presented by the West Bengal police.

The Supreme Court noted that the High Court had been informed that the police had made 21 arrests, and six specific cases of ransacking and damage had been registered, with five accused arrested. However, the High Court failed to take these facts into account. As a result, the Supreme Court determined that the High Court did not fully consider all the facts, and that the matter needs to be reconsidered by the High Court.

The High Court's decision to investigate the attack on Nisith Pramanik's convoy was made following a PIL filed by Suvendhu Adhikari, a Member of the Legislative Assembly and Leader of the Opposition in the West Bengal Assembly. Adhikari alleged that the attack was orchestrated by the Trinamool Congress (TMC) party and that the police had failed to take action against the perpetrators. Adhikari requested that the investigation be transferred to the CBI, alleging that the police personnel present at the scene had failed to take any steps to stop the attackers.

The High Court reviewed an affidavit filed by the Superintendent of Cooch Behar, who argued that the state police were unlikely to conduct a fair investigation. The High Court also noted that the police had registered an FIR seven days after the incident, and when the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) attempted to register an FIR on the following day, the police refused to do so.

In response to the High Court's decision, Dr AM Singhvi and Mr Gopal Sankarnarayanan argued that the High Court had overlooked several critical aspects of the status report that demonstrated that the police were still investigating the matter. They contended that there was no reason for the High Court to transfer the investigation to the CBI based on a PIL filed by an MLA and Leader of the Opposition. PS Patwalia, representing the respondents, opposed the plea.

During the proceedings, the Supreme Court reviewed the affidavit filed by the Superintendent before the High Court and expressed an inclination to allow the petition. The Chief Justice observed that if the High Court relied on the status report, it could not expect the police to conduct a thorough investigation. The Supreme Court overturned the High Court's decision and remanded the matter back to the High Court for further consideration.