Calcutta High Court Quashes 15 FIRs Against Suvendu Adhikari, Citing 'Stench of Malice'

KOLKATA – In a significant judgment with far-reaching implications for political speech and the initiation of criminal proceedings against public figures, the Calcutta High Court has quashed fifteen separate First Information Reports (FIRs) filed against Suvendu Adhikari, the Leader of the Opposition in the West Bengal Assembly. The verdict, delivered by Justice Jay Sengupta, provides a detailed critique of the grounds on which the cases were registered, flagging issues from insufficient evidence and vicarious liability to what the Court termed a "stench of malice" in the proceedings.

The ruling addresses a wide array of allegations against the senior BJP leader, ranging from assault and vandalism to hate speech and abetment to murder. The Court's meticulous, case-by-case analysis offers a judicial lens on the often-fraught intersection of political rivalry and the criminal justice system, setting a high bar for what constitutes cognizable offenses in the context of political expression.

---

Scrutinizing Allegations of Hate Speech and Incitement

A central theme in Justice Sengupta's decision was the interpretation of laws governing speech that allegedly promotes enmity between groups, primarily under Section 153A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Several FIRs against Adhikari accused him of making communally charged statements and speeches that hurt religious sentiments.

In one instance, an FIR at Tamluk Police Station accused Adhikari of threatening a Superintendent of Police and delivering a speech that harmed religious feelings. In quashing this FIR, the Court made a crucial observation on the nature of political discourse: "Urging to protect one's own belief or caste or clan has not been made illegal in our laws."

This principle was reiterated in the analysis of an FIR from Nandigram Police Station, which accused Adhikari of making communally charged statements. The Court opined that political actors are entitled to hold and express particular views on religion and caste. The judgment states, "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."

Similarly, in quashing an FIR from Nandakumar Police Station, where Adhikari was accused of provoking a breach of peace by stating "Hinduism is in danger," the Court held that such assertions do not automatically fall under the ambit of Section 153A. The ruling clarified, "Stating certain facts including as regards earlier disturbances and urging one‟s own caste or community to consolidate does not necessarily attract Section 153A."

These observations are critical for legal practitioners, as they distinguish between permissible political mobilization and impermissible incitement to hatred, suggesting that a call for consolidation within a community is not, in itself, a criminal act.

"Stench of Malice": Questioning the Bona Fides of Complaints

The Court reserved its most pointed criticism for a series of three FIRs filed at Contai Police Station that accused Adhikari of threatening voters. Upon examination, it was discovered that three distinct individuals had filed complaints with identical statements within minutes of each other. This procedural anomaly led the Court to cast serious doubt on the authenticity and motive behind the allegations.

"The three proceedings appear to be tainted with a stench of malice," Justice Sengupta ruled, highlighting the potential for coordinated, politically motivated legal actions. This finding serves as a powerful precedent for scrutinizing multiple, identical complaints filed in quick succession against a political opponent, allowing defence counsels to argue that such patterns indicate malicious prosecution rather than genuine grievances.

Insufficient Evidence and Misapplication of Serious Charges

The judgment also delved into cases where the evidence on record failed to substantiate the serious charges invoked. A notable example was the FIR at Contai Police Station concerning the death of Adhikari's security guard from a gunshot wound. The guard's widow alleged foul play, citing a delay in arranging an ambulance. Based on this, murder charges under Section 302 of the IPC were invoked.

Justice Sengupta expressed incredulity at this legal leap. "At the highest, if at all, one could have thought of starting an FIR with a charge of death due to negligence. One wonders how an FIR under Section 302 of the IPC could be registered over such allegations," he remarked. This observation underscores the judiciary's role in preventing the misapplication of grave criminal charges based on tenuous or speculative allegations.

Further instances of evidentiary shortfalls were noted. In an FIR at Jadavpur Police Station alleging that Adhikari threatened to assault TMC workers, the Court found significant discrepancies between the assault allegations and the documented injuries. Ultimately, the State chose not to press this case, a decision also made in another FIR concerning a forged photo posted on Twitter.

The Court also dismissed an FIR from Pandaveswar Police Station on the grounds of vicarious liability. The allegation was that another individual had tried to influence an election at Adhikari's behest. The Court firmly stated that Adhikari "cannot be made vicariously liable for any act of the other accused," reinforcing a fundamental principle of criminal law that liability is personal and cannot be imputed without direct evidence of conspiracy or abetment.

---

Broader Context: Judiciary as the Arbiter of Political Disputes

The Calcutta High Court's comprehensive order arrives at a time when courts are increasingly called upon to adjudicate disputes rooted in political and ideological friction. In a parallel development, Public Interest Litigations (PILs) have been filed in both the Delhi and Allahabad High Courts against the upcoming film ‘The Taj Story,’ which is purported to advance the controversial theory that the Taj Mahal was originally a Hindu temple.

The PIL before the Delhi High Court, filed by advocate Shakeel Abbas, alleges the film contains "fabricated and provocative content" that could "provoke communal unrest." The plea seeks a review of the film's certification by the CBFC and the inclusion of a disclaimer. It argues that the film’s narrative could erode faith in historical scholarship and damage the monument's international reputation.

While the Adhikari case involves the quashing of post facto criminal proceedings, the 'Taj Story' litigation represents a preemptive legal challenge aimed at regulating speech before its public dissemination. Both scenarios, however, place the judiciary in the sensitive position of balancing freedom of expression against public order and the integrity of the legal process.

The Calcutta High Court's ruling in the Adhikari matter champions a robust interpretation of political speech and serves as a strong cautionary note against the use of the criminal justice system to settle political scores. For legal professionals, the judgment provides a valuable toolkit of arguments and precedents for defending clients against charges of hate speech, challenging the bona fides of coordinated complaints, and demanding a rigorous application of evidence before serious criminal charges are entertained.