Calcutta High Court Quashes 15 FIRs Against Suvendu Adhikari, Cites Political Motives

The Calcutta High Court has quashed 15 FIRs lodged between 2021 and 2022 by the West Bengal Police against BJP leader and Leader of the Opposition, Suvendu Adhikari. The order was passed by Justice Jay Sengupta on October 24, 2025, in connection with petitions filed by Adhikari seeking to quash these cases.

With this ruling, the Court has granted significant relief to Adhikari and also lifted earlier interim orders, including the one that required the State to seek the Court’s permission before registering any new FIR against him.

Justice Sengupta observed that all these FIRs were filed only after Adhikari left the Trinamool Congress (TMC) and joined the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in 2020. The Court questioned whether the timing of these cases indicated political vendetta.

“It will be open to speculation whether the State police had deliberately ignored any earlier crimes when the petitioner was with the TMC, or whether he has been falsely implicated after joining the BJP,” the judge remarked.

The petitions filed by Adhikari sought to quash 16 FIRs in total. Of these, the Court found that 15 FIRs contained no clear or direct allegations against him or did not establish any offence even on a preliminary reading. The sixteenth FIR, which concerned a fake job racket allegedly run in Adhikari’s name, did not name him as an accused, so there was no need to quash it.

However, in four of the quashed cases where there were multiple accused, the proceedings will continue against the remaining persons. The Court also directed the formation of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) comprising officers from both the CBI and the State Police to complete the probe for those remaining accused.

Justice Sengupta also noted that in several FIRs, the State had chosen not to press for continuation of proceedings. Calling this approach “strange”, the Court remarked that it was surprising for the State to take such a casual stand in criminal matters.

“A criminal case is a serious matter. It is very strange that the State, which is supposed to protect citizens’ rights, decided not to seriously oppose the quashing of eight cases. If that was their stand, they could have ended the proceedings earlier,” the Court said.

Key FIRs Quashed by the Court

1. Nandigram Police Station – Allegations of assault during a BJP-TMC clash.
2. Tamluk Police Station – Accused Adhikari of making a speech hurting religious sentiments and threatening a police officer. The Court held that “urging to protect one’s belief or caste” is not illegal.
3. Contai Police Station – Widow of Adhikari’s security guard alleged foul play in her husband’s death. The Court questioned the inclusion of murder charges, saying it was at best a case of negligence.
4. Kulti Police Station – Allegations of unlawful assembly by BJP workers during election campaigning.
5. Contai Police Station – Alleged vandalism and assault of TMC workers; the Court found no evidence against Adhikari.
6. Nandigram Police Station – Accusations of making communal statements. The Court ruled that expressing one’s political or religious opinion does not amount to inciting hatred.
7. Three FIRs at Contai Police Station – Accusations of threatening voters. The Court noted the identical language in all three complaints and termed them “tainted with malice.”
8. Durgachak Police Station – Complaint regarding an unauthorised political rally.
9. Amherst Police Station – Case over a fake photo posted on social media to defame TMC. The State itself chose not to pursue the case.
10. Nandakumar Police Station – Accusation of provoking breach of peace by saying “Hinduism is in danger.” The Court ruled that such statements do not attract Section 153A IPC.
11. Jadavpur Police Station – Alleged threats to assault TMC workers. The Court found contradictions and the State did not press the case.
12. Nandigram Police Station – Allegations of assault against Bhumi Uchhed Pratirodh Committee (BUPC) members.
13. Pandaveswar Police Station – Allegation of trying to influence elections. The Court ruled Adhikari cannot be held liable for others’ actions.

Representation Before the Court

• For Suvendu Adhikari: Senior Advocate Billwadal Bhattacharyya with advocates Moyukh Mukherjee, Aishwarya Bazaz, and Sagnika Banerjee.
• For the State: Senior Advocate Kalyan Bandopadhyay, Advocate General Kishor Dutta, and others.
• For the CBI: Deputy Solicitor General Dhiraj Trivedi and his team.
• For the complainant in the security guard case: Senior Advocate Sabyasachi Banerjee and others.