Supreme Court Directs WB Govt To Decide On Partha Chatterjee's Co-Accused Sanction In 2 Weeks

The Bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice NK Singh was hearing Chatterjee’s plea challenging a Calcutta High Court order refusing him bail in a CBI-registered case.

Appearing for the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), Additional Solicitor General SV Raju strongly opposed the plea, calling Chatterjee “neck-deep in corruption.”

ASG Raju submitted that a Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by a co-accused, involving the same impugned order, is already listed before a coordinate bench in July 2025. He urged the Court to hear both matters together.

Chatterjee’s counsel argued that trial proceedings had stalled due to pending prosecution sanction against other accused persons, even though sanction against Chatterjee had already been granted. “Their case is that even my trial cannot be separated,” he submitted.

When Justice Kant inquired who was not granting the requisite sanction, ASG Raju responded that the State of West Bengal had failed to issue the sanction for the co-accused, thus delaying the trial. “The State can be made a party and asked why the sanction has not been granted,” Raju said.

Chatterjee’s counsel also submitted that his client is bedridden and unable to walk.

Countering the claim, ASG Raju alleged that a particular hospital was being used to favour “accused ministers” and said that Chatterjee was “fine.”

Expressing concern over procedural delays, Justice Kant remarked, “The only thing is why in bail matters, the order is list in July. The bail matters should be given a date…We have reached a stage, where in bail matters there are dissenting opinions. Mr. Raju what's happening? In bail matters, the High Courts are writing lengthy judgments and having divergent views? Something very....”

In its order, the Court directed that Chatterjee’s plea be listed along with the co-accused's matter on July 17, 2025.

The Bench also ordered the Chief Secretary of West Bengal to take an “appropriate decision” on the sanction for prosecution of the co-accused within two weeks, to facilitate the trial.

While noting that the State of West Bengal and the co-accused are not presently parties before it, the Court clarified that no opinion was being expressed on the merits of the case, and the direction was solely to ensure progress in the trial.

"We are conscious, of the fact that the Stat of WB or the co accused are not before us. Hence, it is clarified that we have not expressed our opinion on merits and we have only stated the needful be done," the Bench said.

The Court further directed the Registry to tag any other SLPs filed against the Calcutta High Court’s orders dated November 20, 2024, and December 24, 2024, with the present case.

"Registry is further directed that any other SLP filed against impugned orders dated 20.11.2024 and 24.12. 2024 of Calcutta HC shall also be tagged with this case," the Court ordered.

Previously

In a related news, the Supreme Court on December 13, 2024, had ordered, "While the appellant may challenge the framing of charges, the examination of witnesses must proceed without delay. Most importantly, the petitioner shall be released on February 1, 2025. If the trial court completes the framing of charges and the examination of witnesses earlier, the petitioner shall be released immediately thereafter". Clarifying that these directions are only concerning the ED case, the court asked the appellant and their counsels to extend full cooperation to the trial court, noting that witnesses will be examined without prejudice to any rights of the appellant.

On 27 November, the Enforcement Directorate told the Supreme Court that 'undeserving candidates were appointed for money' during the hearing of the bail plea of former West Bengal Education Minister Partha Chatterjee in a money laundering case. The Bench had observed that, "The allegation is that the petitioner was the Education Minister in the government of West Bengal, and there were allegations of large-scale scams in the recruitment of assistant primary teachers for extreme considerations. The allegation is that the petitioner and his associates Arpita Mukherjee and Manik Bhattacharya, were actively involved."

As the Bench went on to inquire about the current status of custody it asked, "Are you in judicial custody or CBI custody? We want to segregate the period of judicial custody and police custody in ED and CBI? We will take up the matter on Monday. Just get a copy of when you were arrested by CBI for the first time.

Notably, on 7 May, the Supreme Court had stayed the Calcutta High Court's April 22, 2024 judgement quashing the appointment of 23,123 teaching and non-teaching staff in the state made through the State Level Selection Test-2016 (SLST).

The West Bengal government had filed a plea in the Supreme Court questioning the correctness of the Calcutta High Court's order. It also challenged the direction to the candidates who submitted blank OMR sheets but obtained appointments, to return all remunerations and benefits received by them to the State exchequer along with interest calculated at 12 % per annum, from the date of receipt thereof till deposit, within a period of four weeks.

The petitioner had sought an interim stay on the operation of the HC's judgment in the matter.

In what is called as cash-for-job scam, the CBI had arrested former state education minister Partha Chatterjee and other bigwigs and recovered huge caches of cash during the investigation.

On July 2022, A Special Court in Kolkata sent West Bengal Minister and TMC leader Partha Chatterjee to Enforcement Directorate (ED) custody till August 3 in the alleged teachers' recruitment scam during his tenure as the State Education Minister.