PIL on WB Post-Poll violence: Apex Court seeks response from Centre, CBI

The Supreme Court on Tuesday issued notice to the petitioners who had filed a PIL at Calcutta High Court pertaining to post-poll violence in West Bengal. The apex court also sought responses from the Central government and the CBI on the issue. The Calcutta High Court had ordered CBI inquiry into post-poll violence cases, which was challenged by the West Bengal government in the top court

Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday issued notice to the petitioners who had filed a public interest litigation (PIL) at the Calcutta High Court pertaining to post-poll violence in West Bengal. The apex court also sought responses from the Central government and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on the issue. The Calcutta High Court had ordered a CBI inquiry into post-poll violence cases, which was challenged by the West Bengal government in the top court.

The bench comprising Justice Vineet Saran and Justice Anuruddha Bose heard the contentions of the West Bengal government on Tuesday at length and said that the issue calls for notice and they would hear it on October 7 when all the sides are present. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal appearing for the West Bengal government listed out issues that the state wants to argue.

Firstly, he said that it needs to be ascertained that till which date violence can be called post-poll violence, secondly, role of the court in appointing a committee that consists of people affiliated with the ruling party, apprehension of bias in the committee and finally, the principle of natural justice as the state's stand was not considered by the HC while transferring the cases to the central agency CBI.

Sibal argued that the committee, which was constituted comprises people, who are affiliated with the ruling party at the Centre and that is objectionable to the state as there is a fear of bias. "In a federal structure when one particular party is ruling at the Centre and one in the state and there is an open electoral battle in terms of ideology, is it appropriate to appoint people belonging to a particular party? What is the duty of the court in allowing such committee and direct it whatever it directed," he argued?

Arguing further he said that the committee, which was appointed gave an interim report that was not shown to them and based on that report the HC passed an order to transfer cases to the CBI.

"You castigate the state, you pass strictures against the state, you never tell what kind of investigation is going on," remarked Sibal.

Furthermore, he argued that when there is evidence of the state not conducting a proper probe then matters can be transferred to the central agency but just based on complaints, the case cannot be transferred. He added that the issue was transferred to the central agency as it was considered that police is under the state's control and it was assumed that every police officer cannot be trusted.

"You question them on the ground that political party is in control and will try to protect but you don't apply the same principle with the central agency that you control," argued Sibal.

He said that the state was given just seven days to probe thousands of complaints. He said that even the top court had taken five months to analyse all the cases in the Muzzafarnagar riots. The issue will be heard again on October 7.