Accused Has No Locus To Intervene In PIL: SC Dismisses RG Kar Medical College Ex-Principal's Plea Against High Court's Order In Financial Irregularities Case

The Supreme Court today dismissed the petition of Dr. Sandip Ghosh, the ex-Principal of RG Kar Hospital, against the Calcutta High Court's order dismissing his plea to be added as a party to a petition alleging financial irregularities at the institute during his tenure.

The Bench of Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra ruled that Ghosh, being an accused, had no legal standing to intervene in the public interest litigation (PIL) being monitored by the Calcutta High Court.

"As an accused, you have no locus to intervene in the PIL, where the Calcutta High Court is monitoring the investigation," the Bench said.

During the hearing, Senior Advocate Meenakshi Arora appeared for Ghosh.

At the outset, the CJI said, "You have no locus to intervene in the PIL."

She submitted, "This (PIL before the Calcutta High Court) was filed by a person who was former incharge in the present hospital. The allegations, he was moved out of the hospital. He was sent somewhere else, after the inquiry. So, there is a past history, number one. Number two: Identical petitions were previously dismissed. Be that as it may, I am not objecting to that inquiry. let an inquiry be done, but observations made at Page No. 11 (High Court order) Para. 15, is what I am aggrieved by."

The Senior Counsel also submitted that this is a matter where there is an allegation of maybe financial irregularities against me to link me with the rape nexus of CBI in this particular matter, which is a huge miscarriage against Ghosh.

To this submission, the CJI said, "It cannot be disputed that you (Ghosh) were the principal of the college at the time, when the alleged offence took place. The simple reason, the High Court has not in this matter either, commented on your involvement, either in corruption or in the alleged offence. Both of which are matters of investigation. Therefore, as an accused, you have no locus to intervene in the PIL, where the High Court is monitoring the investigation or transferred the investigation to the CBI."

Arora contended that Ghosh is not against the investigation. "But linking the present investigation, which is purely on the financial irregularity or under the Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act, with the nexus, as the High Court uses the word, with that of the rape, is something that is not right."

"I didn't want to say that..that is itself a matter of investigation," the CJI said.

Additional Solicitor General (ASG) SV Raju, appearing for the CBI, agreed with the CJI and said, "Yes, both aspects."

Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta, also appearing for CBI, submitted, "Both are aspects of investigation."

Arora further contended that the PIL before the High Court has been filed by one, Akhtar Ali; he was a previous incharge on the administrative side in the same hospital. "There was an inquiry conducted, against him, against certain allegations made against his role. In that inquiry, the government then, transferred him to the Murshidabad hospital," the Senior Counsel contended.

The CJI said, "We don't have to give Akhtar Ali a clean chit. That should have come before the knowledge of the High Court....at this stage, you have no locus at all in these proceedings. Akhtar Ali maybe himself be the subject matter of a separate inquiry, that is a separate issue all together."

The CJI further said, "Let's not specify the investigation. We are also asking the CBI to file status reports before us. Our being the highest court will also have its own influence on ensuring that there is fair investigation and CBI will apprise us."

Arora requested the Court to expunge the observations made by the High Court against Ghosh. She argued that the observations will hurt him in the investigation.

To this submission, the CJI corrected, "Prima facie observation..nothing will hurt you in the investigation." Accordingly, the Court dismissed Ghosh's plea.

The case revolves around alleged financial misconduct at the state-run medical college, which surfaced alongside another high-profile incident—the alleged murder and rape of a junior doctor at the same facility, which sparked nationwide protests. The junior doctor's body, bearing severe injury marks, was discovered on August 9 in the seminar hall of the hospital's chest department. A civic volunteer was arrested by the Kolkata Police in connection with the crime the following day.

Pertinently, on August 23, the Calcutta High Court had ordered the transfer of the probe into the alleged financial irregularities from a state-constituted Special Investigation Team (SIT) to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). "This Court directs that the investigation be transferred to the CBI, given that the case involved serious allegations and multiple agencies handling different aspects of the case could lead to inefficiencies or inconsistency for comprehensive justice, unnecessary delays in the judicial process and potential misinterpretation of information thereby undermining effective and credible enforcement. Therefore, the investigation should not be fragmented between different agencies. Handing over the investigation to the CBI ensures consistency," the Court had ordered.

The Court had further directed, "...the investigation be transferred to the CBI, given that the case involved serious allegations and multiple agencies handling different aspects of the case could lead to inefficiencies or inconsistency for comprehensive justice, unnecessary delays in the judicial process and potential misinterpretation of information thereby undermining effective and credible enforcement. Therefore, the investigation should not be fragmented between different agencies. Handing over the investigation to the CBI ensures consistency."

Ghosh had earlier approached the High Court, requesting to be included as a party in the petition, but the Court had dismissed his plea, stating that he was not a "necessary party" to the matter. "In the present case, the applicant can neither be considered as a necessary nor a proper party, as a logical/effective conclusion can be reached at in the present writ petition without the inclusion of the applicant as a party. Furthermore, it is crucial to highlight that a Writ Court, when addressing police inaction, is not empowered to examine the substantive merits of the case," the Court had said.

The Bench had ordered, "Thus, as the applicant has no objection to the formation and investigation by the Special Investigation Team (SIT), the applicant cannot be added as a necessary party in this writ petition and the application being CAN 1 of 2024 is thereby dismissed."

Cause Title: Sandip Ghosh v. The State of West Bengal [Diary No. 38744 / 2024]