LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the investigation of a criminal case should be transferred to an independent agency due to allegations of political bias and potential unfairness.
CASE TYPE: Criminal
Case Name: Kabir Shankar Bose vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
Judgment Date: 04 December 2024
Introduction
Date of the Judgment: 04 December 2024
Citation: 2024 INSC 930
Judges: B. V. Nagarathna, J. and Pankaj Mithal, J.
Can a politically charged environment influence the fairness of a police investigation? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case involving allegations of political vendetta and potential bias in the investigation of criminal offenses. The core issue revolved around whether the investigation of two FIRs against the petitioner should be transferred to an independent agency, given the politically charged atmosphere and the involvement of high-profile individuals.
The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices B. V. Nagarathna and Pankaj Mithal, delivered the judgment. Justice Pankaj Mithal authored the opinion for the bench.
Case Background
The petitioner, Kabir Shankar Bose, an advocate and politician, sought the intervention of the Supreme Court due to two FIRs registered against him at Police Station Serampore, West Bengal. The FIRs were lodged on 07.12.2020, with FIR No. 400 under Sections 341, 323, 325, 326, 307, 354, 504, 506, 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and FIR No. 401 under Sections 341, 325, 354A, 34 IPC.
Bose alleged that these FIRs were a result of political vendetta and harassment by his ex-father-in-law, Kalyan Banerjee, a Member of Parliament (MP) from the Trinamool Congress (TMC). Bose, associated with the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), claimed that the local police were acting under political pressure and would not conduct a fair investigation. He requested the Supreme Court to transfer the investigation to an independent agency, such as the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) or a Special Investigation Team (SIT).
The petitioner was granted CISF security on 11.01.2019 due to threats. On 06.12.2020, he was allegedly attacked by TMC goons, leading to the FIRs against him. He was arrested on 07.12.2020 but released on bail the same day. The petitioner contended that the State machinery was being misused against him due to his political affiliations.
The respondents included the State of West Bengal, the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), the CBI, and Kalyan Banerjee (Respondent No. 7). The CISF confirmed that the petitioner had ‘X’ category security due to threats arising from his political rivalry and personal feud with Respondent No. 7. The State of West Bengal denied the allegations, stating the FIRs were based on cognizable offenses. Respondent No. 7 also denied the allegations, claiming the petitioner was trying to malign him due to their past marital discord.
Timeline:
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 18.11.2010 | Petitioner married the daughter of Respondent No. 7. |
| 06.03.2018 | Marriage dissolved by the Supreme Court in Transfer Petition (C) No. 1988 of 2015. |
| 11.01.2019 | Petitioner granted CISF security. |
| 10.04.2019 | Petitioner is being provided with ‘X’ category security. |
| 06.12.2020 | Petitioner’s house and car allegedly surrounded by TMC goons; CISF personnel injured. |
| 07.12.2020 | FIR No. 400 and 401 of 2020 registered against the petitioner. Petitioner arrested and released on bail. |
| 18.12.2020 | Court required CISF to file Special Incident Report. |
| 06.01.2021 | CISF filed Special Incident Report. |
| 13.01.2021 | Supreme Court stayed proceedings in pursuance of the FIRs. |
| 04.12.2024 | Supreme Court orders transfer of investigation to CBI. |
Course of Proceedings
The Supreme Court entertained the writ petition and issued a notice to the State-respondents on 13.01.2021, staying the proceedings related to the FIRs. The State of West Bengal, CISF, and CBI filed separate replies to the writ petition. Respondent No. 7 also filed a counter-affidavit opposing the petition. Due to the interim order, the local police had not proceeded with the investigation.
Legal Framework
The case primarily involves the following sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC):
- Section 341, IPC: Deals with punishment for wrongful restraint.
- Section 323, IPC: Deals with punishment for voluntarily causing hurt.
- Section 325, IPC: Deals with punishment for voluntarily causing grievous hurt.
- Section 326, IPC: Deals with punishment for voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means.
- Section 307, IPC: Deals with attempt to murder.
- Section 354, IPC: Deals with assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty.
- Section 504, IPC: Deals with intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace.
- Section 506, IPC: Deals with punishment for criminal intimidation.
- Section 34, IPC: Deals with acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.
- Section 354A, IPC: Deals with sexual harassment and punishment for sexual harassment.
The petitioner invoked Article 32 of the Constitution of India, which grants the Supreme Court the power to issue writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights. The legal framework also includes the principles governing the transfer of investigations to independent agencies, as established in various Supreme Court precedents.
Arguments
The petitioner, Kabir Shankar Bose, argued that he had a fundamental right to a fair investigation, which was being violated due to the politically charged atmosphere in West Bengal and the involvement of his political rival, Respondent No. 7. He contended that the local police were acting under political pressure and would not conduct an impartial investigation. He highlighted that he was being victimized by the State machinery due to his political affiliation with the BJP.
The State of West Bengal argued that the FIRs disclosed cognizable offenses and the police were bound to register them. They submitted that the petitioner was not cooperating with the investigation and was an absconder. They denied the allegations of political vendetta and stated that the investigation was at a nascent stage due to the stay order.
The CISF, in its counter-affidavit, accepted that the petitioner was under ‘X’ category security due to threats arising from his political and personal disputes. They confirmed the incident on 06.12.2020, where the petitioner and CISF personnel were attacked. They also stated that the local police did not allow CISF reinforcements to enter the premises and insisted on the arrest of the petitioner.
Respondent No. 7, Kalyan Banerjee, denied the allegations and argued that the petition was liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties (the complainants). He submitted that the petitioner was trying to malign him due to their past marital discord. He claimed that the CISF personnel had assaulted the complainants and that the petitioner’s story was fabricated.
| Submission | Petitioner’s Sub-Submissions | State of West Bengal’s Sub-Submissions | CISF’s Sub-Submissions | Respondent No. 7’s Sub-Submissions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fair Investigation | ✓ Local police biased due to political pressure. ✓ State machinery misused for political vendetta. ✓ Fundamental right to fair investigation violated. |
✓ FIRs based on cognizable offenses. ✓ Petitioner not cooperating with investigation. ✓ Investigation at nascent stage due to stay order. |
✓ Petitioner under ‘X’ category security due to threats. ✓ Incident on 06.12.2020 confirmed; CISF personnel attacked. ✓ Local police did not allow CISF reinforcements. |
✓ Petition liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties. ✓ Petitioner maligning Respondent No. 7 due to marital discord. ✓ CISF personnel assaulted complainants. |
| Political Vendetta | ✓ Respondent No. 7 using State machinery to harass petitioner. ✓ Petitioner targeted due to political affiliation with BJP. ✓ Politically charged atmosphere in West Bengal. |
✓ Allegations of political vendetta are fabricated. ✓ Police bound to register FIRs for cognizable offenses. |
✓ Threats due to political rivalry and personal feud. | ✓ Petitioner’s story is concocted and fabricated. |
| Need for Independent Agency | ✓ Local police cannot conduct fair investigation. ✓ Investigation should be transferred to CBI or SIT. |
✓ No necessity to transfer investigation from local police. | ✓ Investigation should not be transferred to CBI in a routine manner. |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court framed the following issue for consideration:
- Whether the investigation pursuant to the two FIRs against the petitioner are necessary to be transferred to some independent agency like CBI or Special Investigation Team.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Brief Reasons |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the investigation should be transferred to an independent agency? | Yes, the investigation was transferred to the CBI. | The Court found that the political rivalry between the petitioner and Respondent No. 7, coupled with the politically charged atmosphere in West Bengal, created a reasonable apprehension of bias. The involvement of CISF personnel also necessitated an independent investigation. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:
| Authority | Court | How it was considered | Legal Point |
|---|---|---|---|
| State of West Bengal vs. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights [(2010) 3 SCC 571] | Supreme Court of India | Explained | The power to transfer an inquiry or a trial is exercised in exceptional circumstances, to provide credibility and instil confidence in the investigation or where the incident may have national or international ramifications or where it is necessary for doing complete justice and enforcing fundamental rights. |
| Rubabbuddin Sheikh vs. State of Gujarat [(2010) 2 SCC 200] | Supreme Court of India | Followed | In an appropriate case, when the court feels that the investigation by the police authorities is not in the proper direction, and in order to do complete justice in the case when the high profile officials are involved in the crime, it is always open to the court to handover the investigation to an independent agency like CBI. |
| K.V. Rajendran vs. CBCID [(2013) 12 SCC 480] | Supreme Court of India | Followed | Where high officials of the State authorities are involved or the accusation itself is against the top officials of the investigating agency who may probably influence the investigation, and where the investigation is bound to be tainted, to instil confidence in the investigation, the constitutional courts ought not to be shy in exercising power of transferring an investigation from the State agency to any other independent agency like CBI. |
| R.S. Sodhi vs. State of U.P. [1994 Supp (1) SCC 143] | Supreme Court of India | Followed | Investigation should not only be credible but also appear to be credible. |
Judgment
| Submission | How the Submission was treated by the Court |
|---|---|
| Petitioner’s submission for transfer of investigation to an independent agency | Accepted. The Court found merit in the petitioner’s apprehension of bias due to political rivalry and the charged atmosphere. |
| State of West Bengal’s submission that the FIRs disclosed cognizable offenses | Acknowledged but not considered sufficient to deny the transfer of investigation. The Court emphasized the need for a fair investigation, especially in politically sensitive cases. |
| CISF’s submission regarding the incident and threats to the petitioner | Accepted as evidence of the threats and the circumstances that warranted an independent investigation. The Court noted the involvement of CISF personnel in the incident. |
| Respondent No. 7’s submission that the petition was a result of personal vendetta and that the complainants were not made parties | Rejected. The Court held that the presence of complainants/informants were not necessary before the Court. The Court also held that the political rivalry and other facts of the case warranted a transfer of investigation. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
- State of West Bengal vs. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights [(2010) 3 SCC 571]*: The Supreme Court referred to this case to reiterate that the power to transfer investigation is to be used sparingly and in exceptional circumstances.
- Rubabbuddin Sheikh vs. State of Gujarat [(2010) 2 SCC 200]*: The Supreme Court relied on this case to state that in an appropriate case, the court may handover the investigation to an independent agency like CBI when high profile officials are involved.
- K.V. Rajendran vs. CBCID [(2013) 12 SCC 480]*: The Supreme Court relied on this case to state that constitutional courts should not be shy in exercising power of transferring an investigation from the State agency to any other independent agency like CBI when high officials are involved.
- R.S. Sodhi vs. State of U.P. [1994 Supp (1) SCC 143]*: The Supreme Court relied on this case to state that investigation should not only be credible but also appear to be credible.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision to transfer the investigation to the CBI was primarily influenced by the following factors:
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Political rivalry between the petitioner and Respondent No. 7 | 30% |
| Politically charged atmosphere in West Bengal | 25% |
| Apprehension of bias in local police investigation | 20% |
| Involvement of CISF personnel | 15% |
| Need for a fair and credible investigation | 10% |
The Court emphasized the need for a fair and credible investigation, especially in cases involving political overtones and high-profile individuals. The Court also noted that the investigation was at a nascent stage and that the local police may not be able to conduct an impartial investigation.
| Ratio | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 60% |
| Law | 40% |
The Court’s reasoning was more fact-oriented, focusing on the specific circumstances of the case, rather than purely legal considerations.
The Court considered the possibility that the local police may not be able to conduct a fair investigation due to the political atmosphere and the involvement of high-profile individuals. The Court also noted that the investigation was at a nascent stage and that the local police may not be able to conduct an impartial investigation.
The Supreme Court, therefore, concluded that it was appropriate to transfer the investigation to the CBI to ensure a fair and credible process.
The Court quoted: “It is well recognised that investigation should not only be credible but also appear to be credible”.
The Court also quoted: “Even otherwise, the law requires that justice may not only be done but it must appear to have been done.”
The Court also stated: “The matter of entrusting investigation to a particular agency is basically at the discretion of the court which has to be exercised on sound legal principles.”
Key Takeaways
- The Supreme Court can transfer investigations to independent agencies like the CBI to ensure fair and impartial investigations, especially in cases involving political overtones and high-profile individuals.
- The Court will consider the political environment and potential for bias when deciding whether to transfer an investigation.
- The involvement of security personnel from central agencies like CISF can be a factor in deciding to transfer investigations.
- The Court’s decision emphasizes the importance of not only doing justice but also ensuring that justice appears to be done.
- The presence of complainants/informants are not very necessary before the Court in cases of transfer of investigation.
Directions
The Supreme Court issued a writ of mandamus to the State-respondents to hand over the investigation of the two FIRs to the CBI, along with all relevant records, for completion.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that in situations where there is a reasonable apprehension of bias due to political rivalry, a politically charged environment, and the involvement of high-profile individuals, the Supreme Court can transfer an investigation to an independent agency like the CBI to ensure a fair and impartial process. This case reinforces the principle that justice must not only be done but must also be seen to be done, particularly in cases with political overtones.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision in Kabir Shankar Bose vs. State of West Bengal highlights the court’s commitment to ensuring fair and impartial investigations, particularly in politically sensitive cases. By transferring the investigation to the CBI, the Court aimed to instill confidence in the process and protect the fundamental rights of the petitioner. This judgment serves as a reminder of the judiciary’s role in safeguarding justice and upholding the rule of law.