On July 10, the Supreme Court of India refused to interfere with Calcutta High Court’s order dated May 18, allowing the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to summon Trinamool Congress (TMC) MP Abhishek Banerjee in a case concerning irregularities in recruiting teaching and non-teaching staff in West Bengal’s government-sponsored and aided schools, popularly called the ‘School Jobs for Cash Scam.’
The court’s Division Bench, comprising Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice PS Narasimha, held that the investigation could not be stifled and that the Calcutta High Court had “duly applied its mind” concerning the need for an investigation. Furthermore, the court said that the consequence of interfering with the High Court’s direction would be to “stifle the investigation at the incipient stage.”
CJI DY Chandrachud orally remarked, “Today for us to stultify the investigation is not appropriate. You have your remedies.” Meanwhile, Justice Narasimha said that the accused has remedies available u/s 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) and that the court’s jurisdiction need not be invoked. “Can we under Article 136 examine the legality of the summons? You have to follow the other remedies independently,” the CJI said.
“Reading the order in its entirety, it is evident that the single judge has duly applied her mind to whether the investigation should be throttled. The single judge has held that such direction could not be issued at the present stage. At this stage, we are inclined not to interfere with the impugned order as the consequence of doing so would be to stifle the investigation at the incipient stage itself,” the court said while refusing to interfere with the High Court’s order.
“Having said this, we leave it open to the petitioner to pursue all remedies available under law, including Section 482 CrPC, since the earlier order passed on April 13 came to be issued while hearing petitions filed in the public interest in the exercise of suo motu jurisdiction. We hence clarify that in the event if the petitioner takes recourse to such remedies as available under law, the observations which are contained in the order dated April 13 or in the impugned order dated May 18 shall not come in the way,” the Division Bench added.
“Finally, since this Court has permitted the filing of applications before the single judge while disposing of the proceedings on April 28, the costs which was imposed by the single judge would have to be deleted, which we accordingly do. However, the deletion of the costs shall not be construed as any expression of any opinion by this Court on the merits of the modalities conducted by the single judge which resulted in the impugned order,” the court added.
Calcutta High Court’s May 18 Order
On May 18, the Calcutta High Court dismissed Abhishek Banerjee’s plea challenging the court’s order permitting the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and ED to interrogate him in connection to the West Bengal School Jobs for Cash Scam. Furthermore, the court imposed a Rs 25 lakh fine on him.
The court also fined Rs 25 lakhs to another accused who moved the court, alleging that the ED officials were torturing and coercing him to implicate Abhishek Banerjee in the scam. The TMC MP challenged the Calcutta High Court’s April 13 order giving liberty to the CBI and the ED to interrogate him and Kuntal Ghosh in a case concerning irregularities in recruiting teaching and non-teaching staff in West Bengal’s government-sponsored and aided schools.
The Calcutta High Court noted, “If the trend to delay the main investigation and intimidate the investigating officers is not dealt with appropriately at the very first stage, then the same will develop as a style and very many investigations in future may be held up for the same reasons.”
“Such a move must be stubbed with an iron hand and upon imposition of exemplary costs so that the same has a deterring effect and similar offenders will be compelled to think a multiple time before adopting such a stand,” Calcutta High Court said in its order dated May 18.
The Calcutta High Court said, “The conduct of the applicants in resisting investigation casts a cloud on the bona fide of the applicants in filing the present application. AB (Abhishek Banerjee) being in the top rung of the ruling political party ought not to shy away from the investigation process. On the contrary, the applicants and particularly AB (Abhishek Banerjee) is trying tooth and nail to oppose such investigation. The proper approach would be to put oneself to the test and come out clean instead of avoiding or running away from the entire process.”
Calcutta High Court Directs Abhishek Banerjee to Cooperate
Earlier on May 8, the Calcutta High Court pulled up Abhishek Banerjee for opposing the court’s earlier order directing a probe into his involvement in the scam. The court asked the TMC leader what was troubling him and why he can’t cooperate with the probe, as ordered.
“If suppose there is an investigation, why can’t you co-operate? What is troubling you? The court has merely ordered for a probe and no one is above an investigation. Let me know what is troubling you? What is the difficulty?” the court asked Abhishek Banerjee’s counsel.
The court further remarked, “You are not above law, stop being extra-apprehensive.” The court’s remark came after Banerjee’s counsel requested an audience from the bench in the proceedings wherein the petitioner sought for the implementation of the court’s April 13 order, passed by Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay, directing a CBI and ED probe into the TMC leader’s involvement in the scan.
The court rejected Banerjee’s counsel’s submission that since the order affects his client, then he should be given an opportunity to be heard.
The court said, “In the midst of an investigation, several names might crop up. But that doesn’t mean that each and every person will have to be given notice prior to the probe. All that the person has to do is co-operate with the probe. Please understand, no body is above the law and not even you. So stop giving too much importance.”
Thereafter, Banerjee’s counsel submitted that his client apprehends an adverse action. The court said, “Stop being extra apprehensive. I see nothing against you at least at this stage. Only probe is ordered against a speech. Let them proceed. You have no right to be heard at this stage.”
Furthermore, the counsel contended that if a crime has taken place in the state, then it is a question of law and order then only the state can conduct the probe. “The investigation could be transferred to the CBI or even ED, only in rarest of rare instances and the instant case, as per me, isn’t a rarest of rare case. In fact, the concerned department wasn’t available before the court. Due to government holiday, all public offices were shut that day,” the counsel said.
