Image used for representational purposes only.
| Photo Credit: S. Subramanium
The Supreme Court on Wednesday (September 30, 2026) agreed to list for hearing a State of West Bengal petition against the Calcutta High Court’s grant of interim bail to Congress candidate Milan Pradhan to contest the Nandigram Assembly bypoll, while orally indicating that it may dismiss the challenge.
Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, heading a three-judge Bench, refused an urgent oral plea made by the State to hear the appeal on October 1. But the Chief Justice said the court had a “lengthy board” of cases.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for West Bengal, said a listing on October 5 would make the petition infructuous. The polling was scheduled the next day, on October 6.
“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,” Mr. Mehta requested the court.
But Chief Justice Kant declined to budge, saying, “Our board is very lengthy. We will surely dismiss this, but we will dismiss it on Monday (October 5), not tomorrow”.
Mr. Pradhan’s counsel had submitted in the High Court that his client was arrested on September 18 in connection with an FIR filed 19 years ago.
The High Court also took note of the fact that Mr. Pradhan was taken into custody only after filing his nomination papers.
“Are there several cases against him?” Chief Justice Kant asked Mr. Mehta on Wednesday (September 29).
Mr. Mehta said Mr. Pradhan was involved in six different FIRs. The cases against him related to the 2007 Nandigram agitation and involved allegations of rioting and murder.
The High Court had noted in its decision that the events at Nandigram formed part of the history of West Bengal, particularly the farmers’ struggle to protect the land acquisition to which they were deeply attached.
“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,” the High Court had observed.
The Supreme Court, in a May 2024 order granting temporary bail to former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal in the excise policy case, had rejected arguments that the “grant of interim bail on this account would be giving a premium of placing politicians in a benefic position compared to ordinary citizens of this country”.
“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,” the apex court had observed.
Published – September 30, 2026 12:26 pm IST
