Calcutta HC Quashes 15 FIRs Against Suvendu Adhikari, Questions 'Spur of Cases' Post-Defection

Kolkata, India – In a significant ruling with far-reaching implications for the intersection of law and politics, the Calcutta High Court has quashed fifteen First Information Reports (FIRs) filed against Suvendu Adhikari, the Leader of the Opposition in West Bengal. The detailed 169-page order, delivered by Justice Jay Sengupta, not only provides relief to the senior BJP leader but also casts a critical eye on the state machinery, questioning the sudden surge in criminal cases following his political defection from the ruling Trinamool Congress (TMC).

The judgment simultaneously vacates a previous interim order from December 2022, which had acted as a protective shield for Adhikari by restraining the state from registering new FIRs against him without the court's leave. Justice Sengupta reasoned that such an embargo could not be perpetual and must conclude with the final disposal of the petitions.

The case, Suvendu Adhikari Vs The State of West Bengal & Ors. , consolidates two petitions filed by Adhikari seeking the quashing of multiple criminal proceedings initiated against him between 2021 and 2022, shortly after he joined the BJP.

---

Judicial Scrutiny of Politically Motivated Litigation

At the heart of the court's decision is a pointed observation regarding the timing and nature of the FIRs. Justice Sengupta noted the conspicuous absence of any criminal cases against Adhikari during his long tenure with the TMC, juxtaposed with the flurry of cases filed after his change in political allegiance. This pattern, the court suggested, invites speculation about the motives behind the prosecutions.

In a striking passage, the judgment states, “It will be open to speculation as to whether the State police had been deliberately ignoring any earlier crimes, or is it a fact that the petitioner had been falsely implicated… for shifting political allegiance.” The court pondered that if the numerous post-defection cases were to be believed, "one would be at a loss to ponder about whether the petitioner is a habitual offender and quite an incorrigible one." This judicial skepticism underscores a growing concern about the use of the criminal justice system as a tool for political retribution.

The court further rebuked the state for its "cavalier stand" during the hearings. It was noted that in several of the challenged proceedings, the state expressed that it was not pressing for the continuation of the cases against Adhikari. Justice Sengupta found this perplexing, remarking, “A criminal case is a very serious thing… it is very strange indeed that the State… could take such a cavalier stand… If this was the stand of the State, they might have very well brought an end to the proceedings themselves at an earlier stage.” This criticism highlights a potential abuse of process, where cases are initiated without the substantive intent to see them through to a logical conclusion.

---

Key Legal Principles Reaffirmed

The judgment provides crucial clarification on several legal principles, particularly concerning political speech and criminal liability.

On Political Speech and Section 153A IPC

Several FIRs accused Adhikari of making communally charged speeches intended to promote enmity between groups, an offence under Section 153A of the Indian Penal Code. In quashing these FIRs, the court made a nuanced distinction between divisive hate speech and legitimate political discourse.

Justice Sengupta observed that political figures often address community interests and that "merely, asking for consolidations of one's own group or protesting against an alleged discrimination against it does not necessarily attract the mischief of inciting hatred against other groups." In another instance related to a speech about Hinduism, the court held, "Stating certain facts including as regards earlier disturbances and urging one’s own caste or community to consolidate does not necessarily attract Section 153A." This interpretation is vital for legal practitioners navigating the fine line between protected political speech and unlawful incitement in an increasingly polarized climate.

Rejection of Vicarious Liability

In a case where Adhikari was implicated for the alleged actions of another individual trying to influence an election, the court firmly rejected the notion of vicarious liability based on political association. The order explicitly states that Adhikari "cannot be made vicariously liable for any act of the other accused" merely because of his political position. This reaffirms the fundamental criminal law principle that liability must be established based on individual acts or a proven conspiracy, not on mere association or leadership status.

---

Case-by-Case Analysis and Formation of a Special Investigation Team (SIT)

The court meticulously examined each of the fifteen FIRs, finding a common thread of insufficient evidence. The grounds for quashing ranged from a complete lack of specific allegations against Adhikari to a prima facie finding that the alleged offences were not made out from the case diary.

The quashed FIRs covered a wide spectrum of allegations, including: * Assault during political clashes (Nandigram PS).

* Hurting religious sentiments and threatening a police official (Tamluk PS).

* Foul play in the death of a security guard, where the court questioned how murder charges (Sec 302 IPC) were invoked over allegations that, at best, suggested negligence (Contai PS).

* Vandalism and outraging the modesty of a woman (Contai PS).

* Threatening voters, where the court noted three identical complaints filed within minutes, suggesting they were "tainted with a stench of malice" (Contai PS).

* Posting a forged photo on social media to defame the TMC (Amherst PS).

For four cases involving multiple accused, the court, while quashing the proceedings against Adhikari, ordered the formation of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to conclude the investigation into the remaining accused. The composition of this SIT—comprising officers from both the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the West Bengal Police—is a noteworthy measure, indicating the court's intent to ensure a fair and impartial probe that balances central and state agency involvement.

One additional FIR, concerning a fake job racket where money was allegedly collected in Adhikari's name, was not quashed as the court noted he had not yet been named as an accused, rendering the prayer for quashing premature.

This landmark decision from the Calcutta High Court serves as a powerful judicial commentary on the imperative to insulate the criminal justice system from political maneuvering. It provides a robust defense of political speech while reinforcing core tenets of criminal liability, offering significant persuasive value for similar cases across the country.