CPIM will file a Special Leave Petition (SLP) in the Supreme Court against a Tripura High Court order refusing to quash an FIR against former Tripura Chief Minister Manik Sarkar over his remarks at a farmers’, workers’ and agricultural labourers’ movement on August 10.
Key Takeaways
-
CPIM will file a Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court challenging the Tripura High Court order on the FIR against Manik Sarkar.
-
The case concerns Sarkar’s remarks at an August 10 movement involving farmers, workers and agricultural labourers.
-
The party argues that the remarks called for stronger democratic mobilisation, not violence, and has criticised the legal action against the former Chief Minister.
The CPIM has decided to challenge a Tripura High Court order in the Supreme Court after the court declined to quash an FIR against former Chief Minister Manik Sarkar over his remarks on a protest movement. In a video message on October 14, CPIM State Secretary and LoP has criticised the court’s decision, arguing that the observations do not reflect the political context of Sarkar’s speech. He said the party would seek to overturn the order and have the FIR quashed, describing the case as an attempt to undermine democratic political expression.
| Earlier Report: Tripura HC Rejects Manik Sarkar’s Plea to Quash FIR |
The CPIM will approach the Supreme Court challenging a Tripura High Court order that declined to quash an FIR against former Chief Minister Manik Sarkar over his remarks at a protest movement. Jitendra Choudhury said the CPIM would file a Special Leave Petition (SLP), seeking to overturn the order and cancel the FIR.
The party has questioned the interpretation of Sarkar’s speech and the legal action that followed. It maintains that his remarks called for stronger democratic movements against the government’s policies, which the party considers anti-farmer, anti-worker and anti-labourer.
Dispute Over August 10 Protest Speech
The controversy centres on a speech Sarkar delivered during a movement organised by farmers, workers and agricultural labourers on August 10.
According to the LoP, Sarkar had stressed that the movement needed to expand beyond its immediate demands. He had called for greater public participation and stronger democratic mobilisation to compel the government to change its policies.
The leader said some newspapers subsequently interpreted the remarks as a call to make the movement more militant. He argued that political leaders routinely use strong expressions to motivate party workers, supporters and participants in movements.
He maintained that such political rhetoric should not automatically be interpreted as an endorsement of violence.
The CPIM leader also said the party did not blame the media for its choice of words. However, he alleged that the BJP had used the interpretation of Sarkar’s remarks to initiate legal action against the former Chief Minister.
CPIM Questions BJP’s Interpretation
The senior leader accused the BJP of linking Sarkar’s speech to militancy and violence. He argued that this interpretation ignored the former Chief Minister’s political record and his role in tackling militancy in Tripura.
Sarkar served as Chief Minister for 20 years. The CPIM leader said his government had played a significant role in combating militancy, terrorism and separatist activities in the state.
He also referred to the cooperation his government received from successive central governments. The leader specifically mentioned the government led by former Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee and the role of then Union Home Minister Lal Krishna Advani.
According to the CPIM leader, Sarkar’s efforts to tackle militancy had earned appreciation beyond the state. He questioned why the BJP, which he said had previously acknowledged those efforts, was now interpreting Sarkar’s political remarks as a basis for legal action.
These statements represent the party’s position on the controversy.
Party Alleges Unequal Treatment of Complaints
Jitendra Choudhury also raised concerns about what he described as unequal treatment in the handling of police complaints.
He alleged that people associated with the BJP had made threats and engaged in other unlawful activities but that complaints against them often did not result in FIRs.
He cited alleged threats involving physical violence, attacks on party offices and other forms of intimidation. The leader claimed that authorities had failed to act adequately on complaints concerning such incidents.
In contrast, he questioned why the police had accepted the FIR against Sarkar over his speech.
The allegations formed part of the party’s broader criticism of the legal action against the former Chief Minister. The LoP argued that the case raised concerns about the treatment of political opposition and the space available for democratic expression in Tripura.
CPIM Disagrees With HC Decision
Sarkar approached the Tripura High Court seeking to quash the FIR. According to Choudhury, the matter came before a division bench of two judges, which rejected his plea and indicated that he could seek bail from the lower court.
The party has expressed disagreement with the outcome and the observations made during the proceedings.
The LoP said the CPIM did not consider the decision legally sound. He argued that the court’s observations did not adequately reflect the circumstances surrounding the speech or the context of Sarkar’s political career.
The party believes the remarks should be assessed in the context of a democratic movement calling for policy changes rather than treated as an endorsement of violence.
He said the party could not accept the decision and would pursue further legal remedies.
SLP to Seek Quashing of FIR
The CPIM will file a Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court, seeking to overturn the High Court order and quash the FIR against Sarkar, said Choudhury.
The leader said the party would challenge both the decision and the observations that accompanied it. He argued that the ruling could encourage those seeking to suppress democratic voices in the state.
He also alleged that Tripura had experienced an atmosphere of political violence and undemocratic practices over the past eight and a half years. In his view, the High Court decision could embolden those responsible for such conditions.
Describing the development as unfortunate, the CPIM leader said the party would continue its legal challenge to protect democratic political expression.
The Supreme Court petition will seek judicial intervention to set aside the High Court order and cancel the FIR against the former Chief Minister.
