Back
Denies Relief On In DJ Remark Controversy
The has declined to immediately entertain a challenge filed by MP Abhishek Banerjee, which sought to contest a directing the collection of his voice sample.
The matter, which stems from the high-profile "DJ remark" case, was heard by Justice Tirthankar Ghosh. The Court, prioritizing judicial consistency, stopped short of passing orders on the merits of the plea, instead directing the matter to be placed before the Acting Chief Justice for potential reassignment to a Bench already overseeing a connected matter.
The Backdrop: A Battle Over Evidence The case revolves around a controversial statement made by Abhishek Banerjee during an election campaign in West Bengal, which was subsequently dubbed the "DJ remark." Following the registration of an FIR, the launched an investigation.
As part of their evidentiary collection, the CID approached a magistrate under the recently implemented , seeking a court order to obtain Mr. Banerjee’s voice sample for . The magistrate granted this request, prompting the petitioner to move the High Court.
Legal Arguments: Procedure vs. Investigative Power Mr. Banerjee’s legal team argued that the was "perverse" and suffered from under the provisions of the BNSS. They contended that because the MP never denied that the voice in the alleged recording was his, the collection of a fresh sample was entirely unnecessary. Furthermore, they pointed out that he already possessed against from the High Court in a related matter, which the lower court purportedly failed to account for.
The State-respondent, represented by the , countered that the plea was merely a tactical maneuver to hinder the investigation. The State emphasized that is a standard, legitimate tool for investigative agencies and that an accused person cannot dictate the manner in which evidence must be collected.
Key Observations In analyzing the path forward, Justice Tirthankar Ghosh noted the necessity of avoiding conflicting judicial outcomes, stating:
"Having considered that the main issue is regarding the and continuation of the investigation and the subject matter of the criminal proceedings is pending before the Co-ordinate Bench in , for the , it would be fit and proper, that one and the same Court should take up the issue canvassed in the present ."
Court’s Decision and Future Implications While the Court did not quash the , it effectively paused the proceedings before its current Bench to ensure administrative and judicial alignment. By directing the application to be placed before the Acting Chief Justice, the Court signaled that all issues arising from the same FIR should be handled holistically by a single .
This development highlights the complexities surrounding the interpretation of BNSS provisions during ongoing investigations. As the case proceeds, the judiciary’s focus remains on maintaining and ensuring that the investigation into the "DJ remark" case continues without the risk of overlapping or contradictory directives.
Parties have been instructed to act on a server copy of the court’s order to facilitate the immediate reassignment of the matter.
