SC stays House panel notice to Bengal officials over Sandeshkhali violence

The committee has summoned West Bengal Chief Secretary Bhagwati Prasad Gopalika, DGP Rajeev Kumar, North 24 Parganas District Magistrate Sharad Kumar Dwivedi, Basirhat SP Hossain Mehdi Rehman, and Additional SP Partha Ghosh to appear before it on February 19.

A three-judge bench, presided by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud and comprising justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, took note of the submissions of senior advocates Kapil Sibal and Abhishek Singhvi, appearing for the state officials, stayed the notices issued to the state officials and fixed the plea for hearing after four weeks.

“There shall be a stay on further proceedings in pursuance of the office memoranda dated February 15, 2024…”, the bench ordered.

Advocate Sibal contended that parliamentary privilege would not extend to “political activities”. Sibal said, “Section 144 was imposed at 6 am on February 13 itself. So this complaint is based on a falsehood. In this fracas, 38 police personnel were injured, and eight lady personnel received injuries. And the video shows their own lady member pushed the MP and that’s how he got hurt. We can show the video”.

Sibal said Majumdar “is not even an MP of that area”.

“The idea is I am not above the law as a parliamentarian. My activity as a parliamentarian is protected,” said advocate Singhvi, who also appeared for the petitioners, referring to some past judgments of the court. He added that it also raises the question of jurisdiction.

The petitioners also said neither the chief secretary nor the DGP or the district magistrate were present at the scene.

Appearing for the Lok Sabha Secretariat, advocate Devashish Bharukha said the complaint was received by Speaker Om Birla. “Under the rules, it was referred to the privileges committee. This was the first sitting of the privileges committee. The notice only calls for evidence on the subject matter. It is not that they have been accused of anything… This is a regular procedure, once the privilege committee is seized of the matter, it merely calls people who might be relevant for the purposes of oral evidence,” said Bharukha.

“This is the first stage. There is no conclusion, and there is nothing in terms of who is at fault. But, the fact is once a Member of Parliament sends a notice and the Speaker believes that maybe there is something to look into, that is all…” he said.

The bench remarked, “Presently, we will issue notice and stay further proceedings”.

Bharukha urged the bench to allow the proceedings to continue. “It does not really harm anyone in that sense,” he said.

The court, however, went on to issue the stay order.