The Supreme Court Bench of Justices Indira Banerjee and Krishna Murari has granted ad-interim stay against a Calcutta High Court order which reopened old criminal cases against SK Supian, the Election Agent of West Bengal’s Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee in the upcoming Assembly polls.

The FIRs registered against SK Supian were withdrawn by the Bengal Government in 2020. The top court court said, “However, since the order which affects the petitioner, herein, has been passed without hearing the petitioner, we deem it appropriate to pass an order staying the operation of the order dated 05-03-2021, only insofar as it pertains to the petitioner viz. SK Supian, for a period of two weeks till date or until further orders of the Division Bench of the High Court, whichever, is earlier.”

According to Bar & Bench, Supian had been booked for unlawful assembly and violence in relation to the 2007 Nandigram violence. These cases were based on charge sheets filed in the context of mass protests against improper land acquisition measures undertaken by the Government of West Bengal during the years 2007-2009 to create a Special Economic Zone (SEZ) in Nandigram.

In 2020, the public prosecutor had filed applications in these cases for withdrawal of prosecution and based on the same, Supian was discharged by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate in February 2020 under Section 321 of Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) in certain criminal cases, reported LiveLaw.

However, on the PIL filed by the BJP member, the High court via its order dated March 5 had said, “… having considered the stereotype orders which are impugned in these writ petitions and looking into the contents of those orders, we are, prima facie, satisfied that exercise of judicial power in terms of Section 321 Cr. P.C. to grant consent to a prosecutor to withdraw has, prima facie, not been appropriately exercised. We make this cautious observation because the formation of opinion of a prosecutor to withdraw a particular case from prosecution is, itself, an activity which is regulated by the statute and the judicial precedents governing the field.”

According to Bar & Bench, Supian’s petition before the apex court read, “There has been no trial or conviction in these cases due to lack of evidence and due to the wrongful basis for instituting these cases. That in February 2020, these cases were finally withdrawn upon application by the Additional Public Prosecutor and with the consent of the court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate in Midnapore, West Bengal by order dated February 10, 2020.”

He reportedly contended that the High Court erred in passing the order, which had the effect of reversing an order of discharge or acquittal of the petitioner without issuing notice to him and hearing him. Supian stated that the re-institution of cases against him was impairing his ability to discharge his functions as an election agent under the Representation of People Act, 1951, reported B & B.

Senior Advocate Vikas Singh (appearing for SK Supian) argued that, “This is (related to) Nandigram violence. Trial court had accepted the Section 321 CrPC applications. Trial court stated that it has pursued an order withdrawing prosecution against people and accepted the same. Then BJP leader files a PIL in High Court and charges are revived ex-parte. I am election agent of the Chief Minister and I am completely disabled. This is unheard of and bizarre.”

Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi appearing for West Bengal submitted that the Supreme Court itself has given powers to the state government to withdraw cases in political agitations and an elected government can decide to withdraw such cases to create goodwill, as per LiveLaw. Referring to the High Court’s order, Singhvi expressed that he had not come across a single case in judicial history where such directions have been given in a PIL.

Supian in his plea also alleged that his personal liberty had been prejudiced, as he was not impleaded before passing of the impugned order and was granted no opportunity to be heard by the High Court.

Finally, the Supreme Court said that it expected the High Court to take up the writ petitions and decide the same within a week or two. “It will be open to the respective parties to raise all contentions before the High Court”, the order read.

The Supreme Court order may be read here: 

Related:

Battleground Bengal: Nandigram emerges as new epicenter of violence
Battleground Bengal: Mamata Banerjee injured in Nandigram

The post SC stays Calcutta HC order reviving Nandigram violence cases against Mamata Banerjee’s Election Agent appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Clashes broke out between party workers of the Trinamool Congress (TMC) and Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) on Wednesday, after the former alleged that Suvendu Adhikar’s security detail allegedly assaulted locals. Earlier that day, Adhikari, who is fighting the upcoming assembly election from Nandigram, was meeting booth-level workers in the region.

The Times of India reports that broom-wielding women, allegedly backed by the TMC, first tried to accost Adhikari’s convoy. Then, at around 8:30 PM, TMC Youth Congress Secretary Samrat Tapadar and party booth president Gautam Pal were allegedly attacked by BJP workers. This alleged series of attacks and counter attacks culminated into protests outside the Nandigram police station the following day.

The TMC blamed the BJP for the violence and moved the Election Commission demanding action against the alleged perpetrators of the violence. Meanwhile, Dharmendra Pradhan, who is the Minister of Petroleum & Natural Gas and Minister of Steel, and was accompanying Adhikari during a padyatra (walking campaign) alleged that TMC workers assaulted their party men shortly after the padyatra began. Pradhan told media-persons, “Attempts are being made on the lives of our party people in a bid to intimidate us. I have faith in the Election Commission. I request that paramilitary forces be deployed in the region to maintain law and order.”

He also posted these images of injured party workers on Twitter:

आज सोनाचुरा नंदीग्राम में भाजपा की रैली पर टीएमसी के गुंडों द्वारा पत्थरबाज़ी करने की शर्मनाक कृत्य की जितनी भी निंदा की जाए वह कम है।

इस हमले में स्थानीय युवा मोर्चा के हमारे एक साथी पूर्णा चंद्र पात्रो के सर पर गम्भीर चोटें आयीं व अन्य कई और साथी घायल भी हैं। pic.twitter.com/d7BcoHJsaW

— Dharmendra Pradhan (@dpradhanbjp) March 18, 2021

But at the heart of this, lies a bigger story, one that is connected deeply with the history of Nandigram and the Singur movement. At the height of the 2007 anti-land acquisition protests, several arrest warrants had been issued against TMC party workers and protesters. 13 TMC supporters had been accused of murders that took place on March 21, 2007.

While one judicial magistrate’s court in Tamluk was looking into cases against nine accused, another was looking into cases against 4 more accused. Earlier this year, the West Bengal government moved the lower courts to withdraw the cases against all 13. Two judicial magistrates of a Tamluk court allowed the state government to withdraw the criminal cases. These orders were challenged before the Calcutta High Court.

On March 5, 2021, the Calcutta High Court stayed 10 orders passed by the jurisdictional magistrate, granting consent for withdrawal of prosecution against accused persons in criminal cases at Nandigram in East Midnapore district.

The court said, “… having considered the stereotype orders which are impugned in these writ petitions and looking into the contents of those orders, we are, prima facie, satisfied that exercise of judicial power in terms of Section 321 Cr. P.C. to grant consent to a prosecutor to withdraw has, prima facie, not been appropriately exercised. We make this cautious observation because the formation of opinion of a prosecutor to withdraw a particular case from prosecution is, itself, an activity which is regulated by the statute and the judicial precedents governing the field.”

It added, “Only when the judicial authority is satisfied that the public prosecutor has acted in terms of the sound and well-settled principles touching the withdrawal of prosecution, would the judicial authority consider whether consent ought to be granted to enable such withdrawal. We, therefore, are of the view that the 3 impugned orders deserve to have a deeper look at our hands and we are satisfied that the consequence of the orders impugned in these writ petitions should stand stayed until a final decision is taken in these writ petitions.”

The court ruled, “Resultantly, the orders impugned in these two writ petitions stand stayed and the concerned criminal courts which have issued those orders will take note of these orders and deal with the criminal cases accordingly.”

This is what set the cat among the pigeons, and TMC has been vehemently protesting this move dubbing it ‘politically motivated’. Nandigram is also the constituency from where TMC supremo and West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee is contesting elections.

The Calcutta High Court order may be read here: 

Related:

Battleground Bengal: Dilip Ghosh not contesting?
Battleground Bengal: Is BJP’s strategy backfiring?
Battleground Bengal: Unprecedented action by ECI
Battleground Bengal: Not one Vote for BJP finds a curious resonance
Battleground Bengal: Mamata Banerjee injured in Nandigram

The post Battleground Bengal: Nandigram emerges as new epicenter of violence appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Supreme Court verdict on Singur land acquisition that eventually signaled the beginning of the end of CPI(M)-led Left Front’s 34 year long rule in West Bengal, has come as a breath of fresh air. It is especially so, because the advent of the Modi government at the Centre had succeeded in reinstating the logic of corporate development, brushing aside all concerns regarding environmental clearances to land acquisition, despite its attempts to undo the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act 2013 (LARR 2013), being effectively rebuffed. The implications of the Singur judgement go far beyond West Bengal, for the argument made by Justices V. Gopala Gowda and Arun Mishra underlines one thing starkly: the “brunt of development” should not be borne by the “weakest sections of the society, more so, poor agricultural workers who have no means of raising a voice against the action of the mighty State government.” While the 204 page still waits to be read more closely, it is clear that the break that the Singur-Nandigram moment had already initiated in the neoliberal consensus among the political and state elite in 2006-7, continues to acquire legitimacy. Even the 2013 Act was a consequence of that break. The SC verdict recognizes that ‘growth’ and industrialization’ do not come without costs and who pays for those costs remains a key question at the end of the day.

At a very basic level, this is a recognition of the the fact that there is no such thing as a ‘trickle down’ effect – at least in the short run. Indeed, as every common person has always known, ‘trickle down’ only means access to crumbs thrown towards them by the partying elites. ‘Trickle down’ theory very simply evades the justice question by reifying the ‘economy’ and its ‘laws’ to the status of a theology that trumps everything else – including ethical questions. While it is understandable that commentators like the Indian Express editorial writer, find that “(T)he Left Front’s diagnosis that West Bengal needed an industrial revolution to overcome social and economic stagnation was apt”, or that economists would still continue to harp on the virtues of ‘industrialization’, what is truly appalling are the reactions from the CPI(M).

The CPI(M) reaction ranged from its West Bengal state secretary, Suryakanta Misra adamantly reiterating there is no question of apologizing (implying that there is nothing to rethink – after all just the other day his party’s Singur candidate Rabin Deb, had thought it fit to campaign in Singur, riding on his Nano) – to the party’s politburo blaming it all on the 1894 Land Acquisition Act! The utter dishonesty of the assertion that the land had to be acquired “under the 1894 Act as that was the only instrument available at that time” is only matched by the continuing arrogance of a party that has got used to believing that it can make people believe whatever non-sense it dishes out. That nobody is any longer buying their stories has not sunk in despite continuous erosion of the party’s support and credibility. Very simply, no law can prevent you from giving the farmers a better deal – it is your decision that you want to go by the worst features of the law. In any case, the judgement makes it clear that the state government had not even adhered to “the proper procedure as laid down in the Land Acquisition Act”, so it is nothing less than comic to suggest that the party’s and government’s hands were tied by an archaic law. Indeed, as we have often argued on Kafila and elsewhere, and as the this article by TK Arun shows, there have been, since, more creative ways of dealing with the question of land acquisition in places like NOIDA and Haryana. Since the CPI(M) leaders have made it a virtue to not think or read, they may have missed the news that even the IMF now seems to be having second thoughts about the neoliberal dogma.

Here is a report from The Guardian by Aditya Chakrabortty that they might do well to read. An extract from the article:

The results, the IMF researchers concede, have been terrible. Neoliberalism hasn’t delivered economic growth – it has only made a few people a lot better off. It causes epic crashes that leave behind human wreckage and cost billions to clean up, a finding with which most residents of food bank Britain would agree. And while George Osborne might justify austerity as “fixing the roof while the sun is shining”, the fund team defines it as “curbing the size of the state … another aspect of the neoliberal agenda”. And, they say, its costs “could be large – much larger than the benefit”.

And this is by no means the only report to have emerged from within the citadels of the orthodoxy, which have begun the question the creed. But like a broken record, the CPMWB is stuck on its theme of selling industrialization as the panacea for all the ills in the state. This is not the place to get into the larger argument about industrialization – I have written about and against it on many occasions ealier – but it may be worthwhile recalling the Left’s own history in the state a bit in order to underline one of the key questions that cries out for rethinking today.

For those aware of the period of the late 1960s, the tumultuous period of the 1967 and 1969 United Front governments was one of intense struggle – for seizure of benami land on the one hand and militant labour struggles in the urban areas on the other. The word gherao was coined during those heady days and it does seem that much of the militancy of the party was related to the challenge from the Left that it had been facing in the form of the Naxalite revolt. Whatever be the case, it was largely a consequence of the militant workers’ struggles of those days that large-scale flight of capital from the state took place. Industry rapidly moved to greener pastures in North India, where there was general ‘industrial peace’ – what current CPM leaders would call a ‘healthy investment climate’. (That this statement is is not an exaggeration is adequately proven by the fact that one of its leaders, Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharya in fact spoke like a FICCI or CII spokesperson, when he said of the SC verdict, that “this will create panic among investors, no one would come to Bengal”!)

As industry moved out, leading to what has been referred to as the deindustrialization of West Bengal, the state reeled under a long spell of gloom and depression. Unemployment or bekari became the theme song of some of the most important literary and cinematic creations of the time. But while these literary or cinematic reflections maintained their critique of ‘the system’, the CPMWB, quietly learnt another lesson. It learnt that it was workers’ militancy that was responsible for the flight of capital and therefore, of unemployment. As a matter of fact, CPMWB never recovered from that sense of defeat. Thus when the Left Front came to power with the CPMWB alone holding absolute majority, it had no desire to repeat the militancy of the 1960s; rather its entire effort was geared towards the industrialization of the state – and, as a corollary, ensuring the right ‘investment climate’ for capital. S0me of the initial industrial projects like the Bakreshwar Thermal Power project or Haldia Petrochemicals became points of emotive mass mobilization by the Left organizations among the students and youth. Very soon, by 1985, Jyoti Basu in fact, virtually forced the party to fall in line with his plan to develop industry in the ‘joint sector’ – what would be called public-private partnership in today’s language. The story that began thus, was destined to end in Singur and Nandigram. ‘Industrialization’, the communists had already forgotten, was in fact a part of the problem, not the solution as far as unemployment was concerned. Once you start believing that corporate bourgeois property is the only legitimate form of property and ownership and all other forms must cede way to it, then there is no other way. That is the classic scenario outlined by Marx, where there are owners of capital on one side, and owners of nothing but their labour power on the other. What other way of dealing with unemployment can this yield but surrender to capital and its whims?

In a manner of speaking, this is not a specific problem of CPI(M) or even Indian communists in general but a more global one. In the 1990s, German trade unions had to virtually surrender to ‘their capital’, accept humiliating conditions for making it stay in the country and not relocate elsewhere. And yet, such is the power of ‘ideology’ that this is one tenet of Marxism that communists do not want to touch (most Indian communists of course do not want to touch any but let’s leave that for another day). Is it really not possible to think of different forms of ownership (from the commons to cooperatives) as possible alternative models, alongside other forms that base themselves on use rather than ownership? Is is necessary to first destroy all other forms of life and livelihoods (where property in its bourgeois form may not even be a separately identifiable entity) and let the problem of unemployment overtake you? Must the question of forms of property and ownership be deferred to an always-deferred, perhaps never-to-arrive future? These questions have now acquired a new urgency in the context of climate change when it is no longer possible to innocently talk of industrialization and pretend not to see that we are on the edge of a precipice, rapidly moving towards self-destruction.

Courtesy: Kafila; Photo Courtesy: Tribune
 

The post The Singur Judgement, End of Neoliberalism and Questions for the Indian Left appeared first on SabrangIndia.