Nandigram Bypoll Drama: SC to Hear Plea Against Candidate's Bail Days Before Vote
Nandigram Bypoll Drama: SC to Hear Plea Against Candidate's Bail Days Before Vote
The Supreme Court will hear West Bengal's challenge against interim bail for Congress candidate Milan Pradhan in Nandigram, just days before the crucial bypoll. Will the SC overturn the High Court's decision? Dive into t
The Supreme Court is set to hear a crucial petition from the State of West Bengal challenging the interim bail granted to Congress candidate Milan Pradhan, who is contesting the upcoming Nandigram Assembly bypoll. The apex court agreed to list the matter for hearing on October 5, a decision that has sparked debate given the bypoll is scheduled for the very next day, October 6.
West Bengal, represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, had urgently pleaded with the Supreme Court to hear the appeal on October 1. Mehta argued that listing the petition on October 5 would render it "infructuous", meaning it would lose its practical purpose, as the polling would be held just a day later.
He highlighted the gravity of the charges against Pradhan, stating,
He is in a Section 302 (murder) case… He has been granted bail for the election. Can I take a chance [for a hearing] tomorrow? That's all I'm saying.
However, Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, heading the three-judge Bench, declined the plea for an urgent hearing, citing a "lengthy board" of cases. In a rather direct observation, the Chief Justice orally indicated the court's likely stance, remarking, "Our board is very lengthy.
We will surely dismiss this, but we will dismiss it on Monday (October 5), not tomorrow." This suggests the court may not find sufficient grounds to overturn the High Court's decision.
Milan Pradhan's counsel had successfully argued in the Calcutta High Court that his client was arrested on September 18 in connection with an FIR filed 19 years ago. The High Court also noted the significant detail that Pradhan was taken into custody only after he had filed his nomination papers for the election.
Chief Justice Kant questioned Solicitor General Mehta about the number of cases against Pradhan, to which Mehta confirmed that Pradhan was involved in six different FIRs, including allegations of rioting and murder related to the 2007 Nandigram agitation.
The Calcutta High Court, in its decision to grant interim bail, had acknowledged the historical context of the events at Nandigram, describing them as part of West Bengal's history, particularly the farmers' struggle over land acquisition. The High Court observed, "The petitioner is a political activist who was associated with the land movement at Nandigram in 2007.
His political involvement is also evident from his participation in the present election as the candidate of a political party."
This situation echoes a May 2024 order by the Supreme Court, which granted temporary bail to former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal in the excise policy case. In that instance, the apex court had rejected arguments that granting interim bail to politicians would give them an unfair advantage over ordinary citizens.
The court had then stated,
While examining the question of grant of interim bail/release, the courts always take into consideration the peculiarities associated with the person in question and the surrounding circumstances. In fact, to ignore the same would be iniquitous and wrong.
This legal precedent might play a role in the Supreme Court's ultimate decision regarding Milan Pradhan's bail.
