Nandigram: SC asks WB govt to comply with its order

“Despite the order directing the state to pay compensation as regard to those injured,the state has not paid compensation,” a Bench comprising Justices R V Raveendran and A K Patnaik said.

It brushed aside the contention of the West Bengal Government that those injured while hurling bombs at the police have been kept out of the purview of compensation.

“The High Court does not make distinction. Let us not make any distinction. The issue is simple if anybody has to be paid you show us the list and we will direct to pay,” the Bench said.

The direction to this effect came after senior advocate K K Venugopal,appearing for the West Bengal Government,said that where there was a dispute that those people whose arms were amputed as a result of explosion of bombs while throwing at the police were not paid compensation.

However,the Bench said to avoid any controversy,authorities are asked to file a list of persons who have been not paid compensation.

The Bench noted that same was the position with regards to rape victims though the West Bengal Government submitted that payments have been made where there was no dispute.

The High Court had directed the West Bengal Government to pay a uniform compensation of Rs 5 lakh to families of each of the 14 persons killed and Rs 2 lakh and Rs 1 lakh to those raped and injured.

Meanwhile,the apex court fixed December 2 to hear the application moved by the CBI seeking its direction for vacating the stay granted by it on initiating criminal proceedings against the erring police officials.

It had on December 13,2007 restrained the agency from initiating further proceedings in the case on the ground that a Constitution Bench was examining whether apex court and High Courts have the jurisdiction to order CBI probe or not.

The Bench noted that since the issue has already been decided that High Court can order probe by the CBI,it will consider the application of the agency for vacating the stay on merits.

During the hearing,CBI opposed the plea of the West Bengal Government to share its report into the investigation of the case.

Venugopal argued that without going through the report the state will not be in a position to file a response to the CBI application.

He also submitted that CBI was directly under the Centre and the state government wants the case to be handed over to any independent agency.

The Bench also wanted to know from the agency as to why it did not want to give the report to the state government.

“You want the stay to be vacated. We can understand but there is a report you have to give. What prevents you from giving the comprehensive report which the court wanted. It has nothing to do with the criminal investigation. Can the state be denied the right to get report.

“If you object,we can direct even the High Court to supply to the state,” the Bench said.

However,Additional Solicitor General Haren Raval tried to justify the stand of the CBI by saying that the report was not only in relation to the crime but also to identify the accused persons.

He said the agency has gathered materials against the accused who are some police officials of the state in the case and as such the report cannot be parted.

Following the firing on March 14,2007,the Calcutta High Court had asked the CBI to inquire as to what prompted the police to open fire when thousands of villagers had gathered to protest attempts by the police to enter Nandigram.

The report was filed by the agency before the High Court on February 15,2008.

The state government had challenged the High Court order indicting it for “unjustified” firing on innocent people in Nandigram.

While staying the High Court order,the apex court had also issued notices to rights group Association for Protection for Democratic Rights and other parties on whose plea it had passed the order.

Venugopal had earlier submitted that the High Court had taken an erroneous decision by allowing proceedings against the cops.

He had contended that the High Court view that the police ought not to have fired at the agitators directly and should have instead fired over the heads to move them away was wrong as under the rules cops were entitled to fire directly at the agitators as firing over the head in a crowd would result in innocent bystanders being hit.