THE Calcutta High Court on Thursday ordered a court-monitored CBI probe into the cases of rape and murder in post-poll violence in West Bengal. It directed the state government to immediately hand over the entire record of cases to the CBI.
The Court said it was compelled to do so because, in a number of cases, the state government had failed to register FIRs.
In some cases, the Court pointed out, even after registration of the FIR, the state government claimed that they were likely to result in 'no case' even after such registration. This showed a pre-determined mind to take the investigation in a particular direction, the Court added.
In such circumstances, the Court said, the investigation by an independent agency would inspire confidence in all concerned.
In the other cases of violence, loot, and vandalism, the high court constituted a Special Investigation Team (SIT) for monitoring the investigation. The SIT will be headed by Suman Bala Sahoo, Soumen Mitra, and Ranveer Kumar, all IPS officers of the West Bengal cadre.
The Court clarified that the working of the SIT would be overseen by a retired judge of the Supreme Court to be nominated later by the Court.
The order was handed down by a five-judge bench of Acting Chief Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justices I.P. Mukerji, Harish Tandon, Soumen Sen and Subrata Talukdar on a clutch of petitions seeking an independent probe into the cases of post-poll violence in West Bengal earlier this year.
It also directed the state government to pay compensation to the victims as per the policy of the state, after due verification.
The decision came after a fact-finding committee constituted by the NHRC on the directions of the high court, recommending a CBI probe. It described the post-poll violence in the state as retributive violence by supporters of the ruling party against supporters of the main opposition party.
Taking note of the report of the NHRC that the police had not properly responded to all the issues raised and was trying to downplay the same, the Court said it certainly needed an investigation by an independent agency.
"Even comparison of data pertaining to the crime during the previous corresponding period will also not come to the rescue of the State as the pattern of the crime can change and the period thereof. Further, there are definite and proven allegations that complaints filed by the victims of post-poll violence, were not registered. Such types of incidents, even if isolated, are not good for a healthy democracy", the Court said.
The leading judgment was authored by Acting Chief Justice Rajesh Bindal. The other three judges also penned their separate opinions but concurring with the decision of ACJ Bindal and the fifth one concurring with all the four opinions.
Commenting on the fact-finding report, Justice Mukerji said the NHRC's committee was not to be treated as Tribunal or a Commission and that Court did not vest them with the power of making recommendations. He, thus, held the part of the report expressing an opinion, making recommendations, etc. was non-est in the eye of law.
Justice Mukerji also held that in his opinion it was not established that the state had shown apathy to action on the information regarding crimes involving post-poll violence or that there is a failure on its part in the investigation thereof or that there is interference with the same by the state.
"The investigation process, in my opinion, is at the initial stage. A more concrete view can be found after some time is given to the investigation to progress", he said.
"What is very serious is that the state has not responded to the alleged offences of murder and rape tabulated as referred to in the judgment of the Hon'ble the Chief Justice (Acting). The offences are grievous, serious, and heinous. It may be as a result of post-poll violence". Justice Mukerji said.
Justice Sen also agreed with Justice Mukerji and said although the fact-finding committee had made scathing remarks and made recommendations against politicians and police officers, such remarks and recommendations were uncalled for, and to that extent, the committee had transgressed its limits. He, however, observed even if the scathing remark and recommendations of the fact-finding committee the data forming part of the report of the fact-finding committee with regard to the nature of the offences are disregarded, the lukewarm response of the State in dealing with such complaint cannot be countenanced.