News Analysis India

Tag: Supreme Court

  • SC to hear pleas against new agri laws, all issues related to farmers protest on January 11

    By PTI
    NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court Wednesday said it would hear on January 11 a batch of pleas challenging the new farm laws as also the ones raising issues related to the ongoing farmers” protest at Delhi borders.

    A bench headed by Chief Justice S A Bobde, which observed that there is no improvement on the ground regarding farmers” protests, was informed by the Centre that “healthy discussions” are going on between the government and farmers over these issues.

    Attorney General K K Venugopal said there is a good chance that parties may come to a conclusion in the near future and filing of response by the Centre on the pleas challenging the new farm laws might foreclose the negotiations between the farmers and government.

    Farmers protest: CJI says all petitions challenging the constitutionality of the three farm acts will be heard together on Monday @NewIndianXpress @TheMornStandard
    — kanupsarda (@sardakanu_TNIE) January 6, 2021

    Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, while informing the bench that talks are going on between the government and farmers in a “healthy atmosphere”, said that these matters should not be listed for hearing on January 8.

    “We understand the situation and encourage the consultation. We can adjourn the matters on Monday (January 11) if you submit the same due to the ongoing consultation process,” the bench said.

    The top court was hearing a plea filed by advocate M L Sharma challenging the farm laws.

    The bench issued notice to the Centre seeking its response on Sharma’s plea which has alleged that the Central government has no locus under the Constitution to frame these laws.

    During the hearing, conducted through video-conferencing, the bench said at the outset, “These are farm matters. Where are the other matters? When they are listed? We are going to hear all the matters together”.

    ALSO READ | Undeterred by cold weather, rains, protesting farmers warn to intensify stir further

    The bench asked Mehta to find out the status of other matters and as to when they are listed.

    Mehta said that no specific date was given earlier for hearing on these pleas.

    “We are keeping this plea (filed by Sharma) for hearing on Friday and we allow the amended petition to be taken on record in the meanwhile,” the bench said.

    “M L Sharma always files startling petitions and he says that the Centre has no power to make laws,” the bench observed, adding, “Mr Sharma says that you (government) are colluding and making laws.”

    The top court said it would take up the plea along with other pending matters “because we think that the condition has not improved already”.

    After Mehta said that talks are going on in “healthy atmosphere”, the bench said it would take up these matters on January 11.

    The apex court had earlier issued notice and sought the Centre’s response on a batch of pleas against the three contentious farm laws — Farmers” (Empowerment and Protection) Agreement on Price Assurance and Farm Services Act, 2020, Farmers” Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Act, 2020 and The Essential Commodities (Amendment) Act 2020.

    While hearing the pleas on the issue of farmers’ protest, the top court had on December 17 said that the agitation should be allowed to continue “without impediment” and this court will not “interfere” with it as the right to protest is a fundamental right.

    While acknowledging the right to non-violent protest of farmers, the apex court was also of the view that their right to protest should not infringe the fundamental rights of others to move freely and in getting essential food and other supplies as right to protest cannot mean blockade of the entire city.

    In its December 17 order, the bench had said: “We clarify that this court will not interfere with the protest in question. Indeed the right to protest is part of a fundamental right and can as a matter of fact, be exercised subject to public order. There can certainly be no impediment in the exercise of such rights as long as it is non-violent and does not result in damage to the life and properties of other citizens and is in accordance with law.

    “We are of the view at this stage that the farmers” protest should be allowed to continue without impediment and without any breach of peace either by the protesters or the police”.

    ALSO WATCH:

  • SC agrees to examine validity of state laws on religious conversions due to interfaith marriage

    By PTI
    NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court Wednesday agreed to examine controversial new laws of Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand regulating religious conversions due to inter-faith marriages.

    A bench headed by Chief Justice SA Bobde refused, however, to stay the controversial provisions of the laws and issued notices to both state governments on two different petitions.

    The pleas, filed by advocate Vishal Thakre and others and an NGO ‘Citizen for Justice and Peace’, have challenged the constitutional validity of the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Religious Conversion Ordinance, 2020 and the Uttarakhand Freedom of Religion Act, 2018 which regulate religious conversions of inter-faith marriages.

    At the outset, the top court asked the petitioners to approach the Allahabad High Court after Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said that it is already seized of the matter.

    ​ALSO READ | Interfaith marriage: Uttarakhand HC asks Haridwar admin for protection to couple

    The bench said that this is not the transfer petition where it can transfer to itself all the cases on the law after one of the petitioner said that the issue should be examined by the top court.

    Senior advocate C U Singh, appearing for the NGO, referred to the judgement of Justice (retd) Deepak Gupta and says that similar laws are being made in various states.

    He sought stay of the provisions of the law and said that people are being in the middle of wedding ceremonies.

    Singh added that some of the provisions of these laws are oppressive and horrible in nature and requires prior consent of government to marry which is absolutely obnoxious.

    The bench said that it is issuing notice and sought response from both the state governments within four weeks.

    When Singh insisted for stay of provisions, the CJI said that now stay is sought on some provisions without hearing the states.

    “How can it be done?” the bench said.

  • Supreme Court expresses displeasure over glitches in virtual court hearing in apex court

    By PTI
    NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has expressed its exasperation at the inability of the virtual court system to work satisfactorily in the apex court, saying it is becoming very difficult to continue with the proceedings in an appropriate manner.

    The court also noted that there were no such problems being faced in the virtual court system in the Delhi High Court next door.

    The apex court is hearing matters through video-conferencing since March last year amid the COVID-19 pandemic.

    “We at the inception must note our exasperation at the inability of the virtual court system to work satisfactorily in the Supreme Court while there is no such problems in the Delhi High Court next door!,” a bench headed by Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul said in its January 5 order.

    “We have been since yesterday trying to cope with the problem of disconnections, resonance of voices, even when there is single person arguing. It is difficult to understand this despite more licences stated to have been taken. The only voice we hear is the resonance of our own voices!,” said the bench, also comprising justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Hrishikesh Roy.

    The bench directed the secretary general of the apex court to look into the issue.

    “We thus direct the secretary general to look into this issue as it is becoming very difficult to continue with proceedings in the virtual courts in an appropriate manner,” the bench said.

    The top court made these observations while hearing a plea against the December last year order passed by the Chhattisgarh High Court.

  • Public participation is not a formality: Dissenting SC judge on Central Vista

    Express News Service
    NEW DELHI:  With the Supreme Court upholding the decision of the Central government to redevelop the Central Vista area of Lutyen’s Delhi in a majority verdict of 2:1, the lone dissent judge highlighted several shortfalls in the process adopted by the government. 

    Justice Sanjiv Khanna dissented with the majority opinion on the aspects of public participation on the interpretation of the statutory provisions, failure to take prior approval of the Heritage Conservation Committee and the order passed by the Expert Appraisal Committee. He, however, agreed with the majority order on the aspects of Notice inviting Bid, the award of consultancy, and the order of the Urban Arts Commission, as a standalone and independent order.

    He said public participation is not to be a mechanical exercise or formality and it must comply with the least and basic requirements so that it is fruitful and constructive. “Thus, mere uploading of the gazette notification giving the present and the proposed land use with plot numbers was not sufficient compliance, but rather an exercise violating the express as well as implied stipulations, that is, necessity and requirement to make adequate and intelligible disclosure.”

    ALSO READ | Activists ‘disappointed’ by Supreme Court’s approval to Central Vista project

    “The citizenry had the right to know intelligible details explaining the proposal to participate and express themselves, give suggestions and submit objections,” penned Khanna. While quashing the notification of modification/change of the land use dated March 28 2020, Khanna directed the Centre to put in the public domain on the web, adequate information along with drawings, layout plans, with explanatory memorandum etc. within a period of 7 days. Justice Khanna said the purpose of outsourcing the task to EAC is to have a proper evaluation on the basis of some objective criteria.

  • Judicial activism permissible to an extent in national interest: Supreme Court

    By PTI
    NEW DELHI: Judicial activism in ‘national interest’ is certainly permissible to an extent, the Supreme Court said on Tuesday, rejecting submissions that it should not have transferred to itself the pleas challenging the Central Vista project from various forums as it led to denial of statutory right to approach other courts or panels.

    The observations were made by the top court in its majority judgement giving green signal to the Centre’s ambitious Central Vista Project, covering a 3-km stretch from Rashtrapati Bhavan to India Gate in Lutyens’ Delhi.

    A three-judge bench headed by Justice A M Khanwilkar, by 2:1 majority, dealt with the submissions that the top court should not have transferred to itself the pleas from the Delhi High Court and other judicial forum as it denied some of the litigants their statutory rights.

    “In any case, once a cause reaches this court and of this nature, the fundamental concern of the court is and must be not only of doing substantial and complete justice, but also expeditious resolution of all aspects in larger public interest. This we must do within the constitutional bounds. Judicial activism to this limited extent is certainly permissible, in national interest,” Justice Khanwilkar said in the 432-page majority judgement.

    While transferring the cases, the underlying principle at play is the duty of the top court to do complete justice as envisaged under Article 142 (extra-ordinary power of the apex court to impart justice) of the Constitution, he said.

    “We have had plethora of cases in the post-PIL period wherein prolonged litigation against infrastructural projects resulted in inordinate delays to the extent that the projects got buried forever or became unviable owing to excessive burden on the public exchequer (honest taxpayers’ money). That is where this Court’s power to do not only complete but substantial justice gets triggered,” it said.

    There is no doubt that the broad approach of a constitutional Court in dealing with a public interest matter has to be a vigilant one to further larger public interest, it said.

    “The laws delay due to tardy flow of Court processes (for variety of reasons attributable to different stakeholders or duty holders or so to say systematic one) must not let itself become an impediment in the fulfilment of development goals of our hallowed nation and consequently to the future generation,” it held.

    Depending on the subject matter, the Constitutional Courts must address the legal challenges at the earliest opportunity without being bogged down by technicalities, in national interest, it said.

  • Supreme Court expresses dismay over pleas urging it to impede development work by government

    By PTI
    NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court Tuesday expressed dismay over “enthusiastic pleas” saying that although courts are “repositories of immense public trust”, they cannot be called upon to “govern” and become an impediment in development work of the state.

    The observations were made by the top court in its majority judgement giving green signal to the Centre’s ambitious Central Vista Project, covering a 3-km stretch from Rashtrapati Bhavan to India Gate in Lutyens’ Delhi.

    A 3-judge bench headed by Justice A M Khanwilkar, by 2:1 majority, said that in recent times, the PILs are being “increasingly invoked” to urge the court to examine pure concerns of policy and sorts of generalised grievances against the system.

    “No doubt, the Courts are repositories of immense public trust and the fact that some public interest actions have generated commendable results is noteworthy, but it is equally important to realise that Courts operate within the boundaries defined by the Constitution.

    “We cannot be called upon to govern. For, we have no wherewithal or prowess and expertise in that regard,” said Justice Khanwilkar, writing the judgement for himself and Justice Dinesh Maheshwari.

    In the 432-page verdict, Justice Khanwilkar said the role of court is limited to examine the constitutionality of policy decisions and actions of the government.

    “The right to development, as discussed…is a basic human right and no organ of the State is expected to become an impediment in the process of development as long as the government proceeds in accordance with law,” it said.

    The bench, in its majority verdict, wondered whether, in the absence of legal mandate, it can dictate the government to desist from spending money on one project and instead use it for something else.

    “We are equally compelled to wonder if we can jump to put a full stop on execution of policy matters in the first instance without a demonstration of irreparable loss or urgent necessity, or if we can guide the government on moral or ethical matters without any legal basis.

    “In light of the settled law, we should be loath to venture into these areas. We need to say this because in recent past, the route of public/social interest litigation is being increasingly invoked to call upon the Court to examine pure concerns of policy and sorts of generalised grievances against the system,” it said.

    The constitutionally envisaged system of “checks and balances” has been completely misconstrued and misapplied, it said.

    “The principle of ‘checks and balances’ posits two concepts – ‘check’ and ‘balance’. Whereas the former finds a manifestation in the concept of judicial review, the latter is derived from the well enshrined principle of separation of powers. The political issues including regarding development policies of the Government of the day must be debated in the Parliament, to which it is accountable,” it said.

    The majority verdict also held that the public trust doctrine has not been violated by the authorities in granting approvals to the project.

    “The project does not involve any conversion into private ownership and has no element whatsoever of permitting commercial use of vital public resources. The proposed project is in line with the standards of public trust and the petitioners have failed to point out any circumstance which would suggest otherwise,” it held.

    It said that the petitioners failed to establish that public resources are being squandered and used in a manner which cannot be termed as beneficial public use.

    Referring to the letters of Lok Sabha speakers, Sumitra Mahajan and Om Birla, and other documents, it rejected the vehement plea that papers were not placed in public domain.  

    “Evidently, all relevant documents from the stage of expression of need for the project by Speaker of Lok Sabha to appointment of consultant, issuance of public notice, conduct of public hearing, final notification for change in land use and minutes of meetings of CVC, DUAC and EAC were placed in public domain. The petitioners have not pointed out a single document which formed a part of the process and was not placed in public domain,” it said.

  • Activists ‘disappointed’ by Supreme Court’s approval to Central Vista project

    By PTI
    NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court’s nod to the government’s grandiose Central Vista Project on Tuesday left environment activists “disappointed” and “disheartened”.

    The apex court, in its majority verdict of 2:1, upheld the environmental clearance and notification for change in land use for the Central Vista project.

    Environmentalist Bhavreen Kandhari said the project is harmful for the environment and is an encroachment of public place by the government.

    “It is a very disheartening verdict. This project is very harmful for the environment. Delhi is the most polluted city on earth. Trees are already being cut.

    “This project is an encroachment of open places, which are meant for the public, by government. This is land grabbing in every way,” Kandhari said.

    Expressing a similar view, Lt Col Anuj Srivastava (Retd), an architect and an activist from LokPATH who is also one of the petitioners in the case, said more deliberation and public consultation was required in the project before it could be approved.

    “It’s a 611 page judgement. The court heard us patiently. The judgement is a split one but we are quite disheartened and disappointed. More deliberation and public consultation in a project of this nature is required.

    “Are we leaving something for our children that we will be proud of? We are exploring our legal options in consultation with our lawyers. But we are deeply disappointed,” Srivastava said.

    Besides giving a go-ahead to the over Rs 13,450 crore project, the three-judge bench of the apex court also insisted that the clearance of the Heritage Conservation Committee (HCC) will be mandatory and the same should be obtained by the project consultant before proceeding with the development work.

    The HCC is headed by Special/Additional Secretary of Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs.

    It also directed that the project developers will have to install smog tower and use anti-smog guns at all construction sites.

    Reacting to the verdict, Manju Menon, Senior Fellow, Centre for Policy Research, said the mitigation measures upheld by the court that include smog towers are well-known public failures already.

    “The environment clearance granted to the New Parliament were challenged on several important grounds such as the lack of detailed and cumulative impact assessments, the integrated nature of the cv redevelopment and Parliament being only a component, and the lack of any thinking by government on alternatives that may be less environmentally damaging.

    “The fact that there is a dissenting view from the bench vindicates the petitioners’ positions that these issues deserved to be examined and corrected. The mitigation measures upheld by the court that include smog towers and transplantation are well-known public failures already. They cannot address the environmental problems of this city that can be aggravated by a massive project of this nature,” Menon said.

    The redevelopment project of the Central Vista — the nation’s power corridor — envisages a new triangular Parliament building, a common central secretariat and revamping of the three-km-long Rajpath, from Rashtrapati Bhavan to India Gate.

    According to the government’s latest proposal for the redevelopment of the Central Vista, the prime minister’s new residential complex will have 10 four-storey buildings with a maximum height of 12 metres.

    The Central Public Works Department (CPWD), which is executing the project, has revised the estimated cost from Rs 11,794 crore to Rs 13,450 crore.

  • Multani murder case: SC asks Punjab govt to place charge sheet against ex-DGP Saini on record

    By PTI
    NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Tuesday asked the Punjab government to place on record the charge sheet filed in the fresh FIR lodged against former DGP Sumedh Singh Saini in the 1991 disappearance and murder of a junior engineer Balwant Singh Multani.

    The top court had already granted anticipatory bail to Saini in the fresh case lodged in the 1991 disappearance and murder of Multani.

    A bench of Justices Ashok Bhushan, R Subhash Reddy and M R Shah also asked the trial court to postpone its scheduled hearing of January 22 as the top court is hearing this matter.

    The bench is hearing Saini’s plea seeking to quash the fresh FIR lodged in the case in May 2020.

    “Gopal Subramanium, senior counsel, for the State seeks time to place the charge sheet and additional documents on the record. Let him do within two weeks. Counsel for the petitioner submits that matter be listed in the month of February, 2021. List in the second week of February, 2021,” the bench said.

    The bench said it has been informed by the counsel for the State that the matter has been fixed by the Magistrate on January 22, 2021 for the appearance of the petitioner (Saini).

    “In view of the fact that we are hearing this matter, it shall be appropriate for the Magistrate to postpone the date by the end of February, 2021,” the bench said.

    At the outset, senior advocate Gopal Subramanian, appearing for the Punjab Government said that a charge sheet has been filed in the case and summons have been issued to Saini for appearance in the court on January 22.

      He said that since the issue requires to be heard at length, Saini be asked to appear before the court and take the charge sheet filed in the case against him.

      Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for Saini, said that the charge sheet cannot be filed in the matter when question over validity of FIR is yet to be decided by the top court.

    He sought a stay of proceedings on the charge sheet in the trial court and Punjab government be asked to place the charge sheet on record before the top court.

      Rohatgi added that Saini cannot be asked to appear before the trial court and therefore liberty be granted to record appearance through his lawyer on January 22.

    Subramanian said that the Punjab government will not do anything which will prejudice anyone as the matter is pending before the top court but the accused may be asked to appear before trial court as the summons have been issued against him.

    Rohatgi said the matter be listed in February since it requires detailed hearing.

    On December 3, last year the top court had granted anticipatory bail to Saini in a fresh case lodged in the 1991 disappearance and murder of a junior engineer Balwant Singh Multani.  It had set aside an order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court declining him the pre-arrest bail in the 29-year-old case.

    The top court had said that long delay in lodging of FIR as in the present case can certainly be a valid consideration for grant of anticipatory bail.

    It had noted that the impugned FIR (dated May 6) has been lodged by Palwinder Singh Multani, brother of the deceased, after almost 29 years from the date of incident and after nine years from the date of decision of the top Court in the 2011 case of Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar related to the incident.

    It had said that even in the fresh FIR there were only allegations of offences like abduction, causing disappearance of evidence, wrongful confinement, voluntarily causing hurt and criminal conspiracy under IPC for which there was an order of anticipatory bail in favour of Saini.

    Saini was booked in May, last year in connection with the disappearance of Multani when he was working as a junior engineer with the Chandigarh Industrial and Tourism Corporation.

    On September 8, last year the high court had dismissed Saini’s two pleas for anticipatory bail in the case and quashing of the fresh FIR.

    Saini had approached the high court after a Mohali court dismissed his bail plea in this case on September 1, last year.

    The Punjab Police on September 3, last year had claimed that Saini had “absconded” while denying his wife’s claims of withdrawal of his security cover.

    A Mohali court had on August 21, last year allowed the Punjab Police to add a murder charge against him in this case.

    This came after two former Chandigarh police personnel, UT police Inspector Jagir Singh and ASI Kuldeep Singh, who are also co-accused, turned approver in the case.

    Multani, who was a resident of Mohali, was picked up by police after a terrorist attack on Saini, who was then the senior superintendent of police in Chandigarh, in 1991.

    However, the police had later claimed that Multani had escaped from police custody of Qadian police in Gurdaspur.

    Saini and six others were booked on the complaint of Multani’s brother, Palwinder, a resident of Jalandhar.

    The case was registered against them under sections 364 (kidnapping or abducting in order to murder), 201 (causing disappearance of evidence of offence), 344 (wrongful confinement), 330 (voluntarily causes hurt) and 120 (B) (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code at Mataur police station in Mohali.

  • Supreme Court gives go-ahead to Central Vista project

    By PTI
    NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Tuesday cleared the decks for the ambitious Central Vista Project, which covers a three-km stretch from Rashtrapati Bhavan to India Gate in Lutyens’ Delhi, by upholding the environmental clearance and the notification for change in land use.

    The Central Vista revamp, announced in September, 2019 envisages a new triangular Parliament building, with a seating capacity for 900 to 1,200 MPs, that is to be constructed by August, 2022 when the country will be celebrating its 75th Independence Day.

    The common Central Secretariat is likely to be built by 2024 under the project.

    A three-judge bench headed by Justice A M Khanwilkar, by 2:1 majority, held that the grant of environmental clearance and the notification for change in land use for the project was valid.

    Justice Khanwilkar, writing the judgement for himself and Justice Dinesh Maheshwari, also directed that the project proponent set up smog tower and use anti-smog guns at the construction site for the Central Vista project.

    Justice Sanjiv Khanna, the third judge on the bench, also agreed on the issue of award of project.

    He, however, disagreed with the judgment on change of land use and on grant of environmental clearance for the project.

    In the majority verdict, the apex court said that prior permission shall be taken from heritage conservation committee and other relevant authorities before start of construction at new sites On the aspect of change in land use, Justice Khanna said it was bad in law and there was no disclosure for public participation on the issue.

    The top court’s verdict came on several pleas on the issue, including the one filed by activist Rajeev Suri, against various permissions given to the project by authorities including the grant of environmental clearance and the nod to change of land use On December 7, last year the top court had allowed the Centre to proceed with the foundation stone-laying ceremony for the Central Vista project on December 10 after the government assured it that no construction or demolition work would commence till the apex court decides the pending pleas on the issue.

    Prime Minister Narendra Modi had laid the foundation stone for the new Parliament building and the construction is expected to be completed by 2022 at an estimated cost of Rs 971 crore.

    The apex court had earlier said that any change at the ground level made by authorities for the Central Vista project will be “at their own risk”.

    It had made it clear that the fate of the project, which includes several new government buildings and a new Parliament House, will depend on its decision.

    The Centre had earlier argued in the top court that the project would “save money” which is paid as rent for housing central government ministries in the national capital.

    It had submitted that the decision to have a new Parliament building has not been taken in haste and no law or norms have been violated in any manner for the project.

    The Centre had also said there was no arbitrariness or favouritism in selecting consultant for the project and the argument that the government could have adopted a better process cannot be a ground to scrap the project.

    Gujarat-based architecture firm HCP Designs has won the consultancy bid for the project to redevelop the Central Vista.

    The pleas filed in the apex court had also challenged the grant of a no-objection certificate by the Central Vista Committee (CVC) and also the environmental clearances for the construction of a new Parliament house building.

    One of the pleas was filed against a Delhi High Court order which had said the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) was not required to apprise it before notifying changes in the Master Plan to allow the Central Vista project.

    A division bench of the Delhi High Court had on February 28 stayed an order of its single-judge bench which had asked the DDA to approach the court before notifying any change in the Master Plan for going forth with the project to redevelop the Central Vista.

    The stay order of the high court on the single-judge bench’s February 11 direction had come on the intra-court appeal of the DDA and the Centre.

    The petitioners before the high court had opposed the Central Vista project on grounds that it involves a change in land use of the green area adjoining Rajpath and Vijay Chowk for building a new Parliament building and government offices.

  • Bengal govt denies allegations in SC that BJP leader’s death was ‘political murder’

    By PTI
    NEW DELHI: West Bengal government has denied in the Supreme Court the allegations that death of BJP leader Debendra Nath Roy, who was found hanging in July last year, was a “political murder” and said that prompt and efficacious investigation has been conducted in the matter by the state CID.

    In its reply affidavit filed in the apex court, which is hearing a plea seeking transfer of investigation in the case to the CBI, the state has said that West Bengal criminal investigation department (CID) has investigated all aspects of the complaints as well as possible causes of death and has already filed a charge sheet in the competent court.

    It claimed that the petitioners, while raising “unfounded allegations” against state police authorities, have relied on the tweets by high-ranking public officials to wrongly assume that the incident was pre-planned or that state machinery was involved.

    “It is denied that the death of Debendra Nath Roy was a political murder or that the state machinery was used or was an accomplice or involved in any manner in causing such death and it is denied this was a shame on society and violated the right to life guaranteed to the citizens of this nation under Article 21 of the Constitution,” said the reply affidavit filed by Dy.SP CID, Malda zone.

    Roy was found hanging near his home in Hemtabad area of North Dinajpur district on July 13 last year.

    He was elected as an MLA in West Bengal from CPI (M) in 2016 and had later joined the BJP in 2019.

    The plea came up for hearing on Tuesday before a bench comprising Justices Ashok Bhushan, R S Reddy and M R Shah.

    The petitioners, Shashank Shekher Jha and Savio Rodrigues, sought time to respond to the affidavit filed by the state.

    The bench posted the matter for hearing after two weeks.

    In its reply affidavit, the state has sought dismissal of the plea and said that “allegations and speculations” by the petitioners that Roy was first killed and then hanged is false and without any basis.

    It said that on July 14 last year, the investigation of the case was transferred from Raiganj Police to the CID, which has probed all the aspects and filed a charge sheet in the matter.

    It said that wife of the deceased had approached the Calcutta High Court praying for transfer of the investigation to the CBI and the high court had disposed of the petition observing that it did not find any biasness on the part of the investigating agency.

    The affidavit said the petitioners have sought transfer of investigation to the CBI and have relied on “unverified statements” purportedly given by wife of the deceased and two of his distant relatives.

    “These statements do not allege foul play by any state personnel or the police and do not impugn the state police in any manner.

    The petitioner ought not to misrepresent such statements, as allegations against the state police,” it said.

    “Similarly, the petitioner relies on certain tweets posted on the account of Governor of West Bengal Jagdeep Dhankhar, all dated July 13, 2020, the day of the death of the deceased Mr Roy, which do not take into account the findings of the investigation by the CID,” it said.

    It said the apex court has consistently held that transfer of cases to central agencies such as the CBI cannot be a matter of routine.

    “To imbue the police authorities and judicial system of the state of West Bengal with accusations of partiality and unfairness, is serious and ought to be substantiated by the petitioner.

    Such allegations cannot be made without basis and the petitioner is put to strict proof of the same,” it said.

    “It is further denied that there is involvement of any state machinery against people having different political ideology or that it has made impossible to trust the investigation carried on by the police officials of the same administration as falsely alleged or at all,” it said.

    It said the charge sheet has been filed under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including 306 (abetment of suicide) and 420 (cheating), in the case against the accused who had threatened Roy over the issue related to return of loan.

    It said investigation in the case is nearly complete, except for certain expert reports that are pending.