In a landmark ruling of Kabir Shankar Bose v/s State of West Bengal & Others, the Supreme Court of India has issued an order directing the State of West Bengal to transfer the investigation of two First Information Reports (FIRs) filed against a petitioner to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The case revolves around a politically charged dispute, with the petitioner alleging unfair treatment due to political rivalry and involvement of state machinery. The Court's decision is rooted in the principle of ensuring a fair and impartial investigation, particularly when there is a perception of bias or interference by local authorities.
Background of the Case:
The petitioner, an advocate and a member of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, seeking a transfer of the investigation from the local police in Serampore, West Bengal, to a more independent body like the CBI or a Special Investigation Team (SIT). The FIRs in question were lodged on December 7, 2020, under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including charges of assault, criminal intimidation, and attempt to murder, against the petitioner.
The petitioner contended that he was being harassed by his former father-in-law, a sitting Member of Parliament (MP) from the ruling Trinamool Congress (TMC) party, due to personal enmity following a bitter divorce. He further argued that his active role in BJP politics and the tensions between the party in power at the state level (TMC) and the opposition (BJP) created an atmosphere that would prevent a fair investigation by local authorities.
Allegations and Political Context:
The petitioner’s allegations were twofold: First, that he had been physically assaulted and threatened by political goons, allegedly from the TMC, on December 6, 2020, when a violent mob surrounded his house. Second, that local police failed to act on the situation, instead registering FIRs against him. According to the petitioner, the political climate in West Bengal, where the ruling party has significant influence over local police forces, made it impossible for him to expect a fair investigation.
The petitioner claimed that his ex-father-in-law, a powerful political figure, had pressured the state authorities to fabricate charges against him, further escalating the need for an independent investigation. He emphasized that his political affiliations with BJP, and the rivalry between BJP and TMC in the state, had led to a conflict of interest that would compromise the local police's ability to investigate impartially.
Respondent's Counterclaim:
The state administration, represented by the West Bengal police, responded by denying the allegations of political interference and claimed that the FIRs involved cognizable offences, including grievous assault and outraging the modesty of a woman. The police argued that the investigation could proceed as per the legal framework without the need for a transfer of the case. Furthermore, they contended that the petitioner was an absconder and had refused to cooperate with the investigation, highlighting that the local police were merely fulfilling their duty to investigate serious charges.
Meanwhile, respondent No. 7 (the petitioner’s former father-in-law), a senior political leader and a sitting MP, also filed a counter affidavit, dismissing the petitioner's claims as politically motivated. He stated that the petitioner’s account of events was fabricated, designed to malign him personally and politically. He further argued that the writ petition was filed without joining the complainants in the case and should be dismissed for procedural reasons.
Supreme Court’s Observations:
The Supreme Court, in its judgment, observed that while the transfer of an investigation to an independent agency like the CBI is not a routine measure, there are exceptional circumstances that warrant such a decision. In this case, the Court noted the political animosity between the petitioner and respondent No. 7, as well as the highly charged political atmosphere in West Bengal, where the ruling party (TMC) and the opposition (BJP) were at odds.
The Court acknowledged that the petitioner’s fear of not receiving a fair investigation at the hands of the local police could not be dismissed lightly, especially given the involvement of politically influential figures and the presence of CISF personnel in the case. The Court further emphasized that for justice to be done, not only must the investigation be fair, but it must also appear to be fair to the public.
The Court highlighted that, in such politically sensitive cases, transferring the investigation to an independent agency could instill public confidence in the judicial process and ensure the credibility of the investigation. The Court also referenced previous rulings, which allow for the transfer of investigations when the involvement of high-ranking officials or political figures may undermine the impartiality of the inquiry.
Conclusion:
Given the unique circumstances of the case, the Supreme Court issued a writ of mandamus directing the state to hand over the investigation to the CBI. The Court concluded that the investigation, which had been stalled due to an interim order, must be completed without further delay, ensuring that the trial could proceed in due course. The decision serves as an important reminder that the transfer of investigations to independent agencies is a tool that courts can use to uphold fairness, particularly when there are concerns about political interference or compromised local authorities.
The Court’s ruling reflects its commitment to ensuring that investigations are not only thorough but also perceived as impartial, especially in politically sensitive cases where justice must be seen to be done.
