Pressure On WB Police To Shield Certain Persons: Calcutta HC Orders CBI To Probe TMC Leader Tapan Dutta’s Murder .
Case Background
Victim: Tapan Dutta, a Trinamool Congress (TMC) leader and social activist in West Bengal.
Incident: He was murdered in 2011. Dutta was actively raising objections against illegal construction projects and other irregularities in Howrah.
Initial Investigation: The case was handled by the West Bengal Police. His family alleged that the police deliberately weakened the investigation to protect influential persons.
Calcutta High Court’s Observation
The Calcutta High Court found that:
Pressure on Police: The investigation by West Bengal Police appeared biased. There was visible pressure on the investigating agency to shield certain influential persons from being implicated.
Justice Denied to Victim’s Family: Despite serious allegations, no proper investigation was carried out for years. The victim’s wife and daughter kept demanding an impartial probe.
Suspicion of Political Influence: Since the deceased was a TMC leader himself and had raised objections against powerful interests, the Court noted that political pressure could not be ruled out.
Court’s Order
The Calcutta High Court transferred the case to the CBI (Central Bureau of Investigation).
The Court stated that only an independent agency like CBI could fairly probe the matter when local police are under pressure or influence.
This ensures that no person, however powerful, is above the law.
Legal Principles & Case Laws Involved
Article 21 of the Constitution (Right to Life & Fair Investigation):
A proper investigation is part of the victim’s family’s right to justice under Article 21.
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) – the Supreme Court held that Article 21 protects not only life but also fairness and justice in procedure.
Fair Investigation is Part of Rule of Law:
CBI v. Rajesh Gandhi (1997) – the Court observed that an accused has no right to demand a CBI probe, but the Court can order it to protect justice.
State of West Bengal v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights (2010) – the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court held that High Courts and the Supreme Court have the power to transfer investigations to the CBI to ensure justice.
Suspicion of Police Bias Justifies Transfer to CBI:
Rubabbuddin Sheikh v. State of Gujarat (2010) – Supreme Court transferred a case to CBI after finding that state police could not hold an impartial investigation in the Sohrabuddin fake encounter case.
Narmada Bai v. State of Gujarat (2011) – SC held that when high officials are suspected, investigation should be handed over to CBI to maintain public confidence.
Victim’s Family’s Right to Seek Fair Probe:
Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of UP (2013) – Registration of FIR is mandatory if information discloses a cognizable offence, ensuring investigation cannot be suppressed.
Pooja Pal v. Union of India (2016) – SC held that a fair trial includes fair investigation, and courts can direct CBI investigation even after a long delay, if justice demands it.
Conclusion
The Calcutta High Court, in ordering a CBI probe into Tapan Dutta’s murder, emphasized:
The failure and bias of West Bengal Police, who acted under political pressure.
The victim’s family’s right to a fair investigation under Article 21.
The jurisdiction of High Courts under Article 226 to transfer sensitive cases to CBI when state machinery appears compromised.
Thus, the ruling strengthens the principle that no one is above the law and justice cannot be compromised due to political influence.
RELATED Blog
0 comments