CPIM to Move Supreme Court Against Tripura High Court Order on Manik Sarkar FIR, Jitendra Choudhury Questions Court’s Observations
By Our Correspondent
Agartala, October 15, 2026
The Communist Party of India (Marxist), or CPI(M), has decided to approach the Supreme Court of India challenging a Tripura High Court order that declined to quash a First Information Report (FIR) registered against former Chief Minister Manik Sarkar over his remarks at a movement organised by farmers, workers and agricultural labourers on August 10.
CPI(M) State Secretary and Leader of the Opposition Jitendra Choudhury announced the party’s decision in a video message on Wednesday, October 14. He said the party would file a Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Supreme Court, seeking to set aside the High Court’s order and quash the FIR against the veteran Left leader.
The decision follows the High Court’s rejection of Sarkar’s plea seeking the quashing of the FIR. According to Choudhury, the party disagrees with both the outcome of the proceedings and the observations made by the court, arguing that the former Chief Minister’s speech must be understood in its political and democratic context.
Dispute Over August 10 Protest Speech
The controversy centres on remarks made by Manik Sarkar during a movement involving farmers, workers and agricultural labourers on August 10. According to Choudhury, Sarkar had called for expanding the movement beyond its immediate demands and mobilising greater public participation to compel the government to reconsider policies that the CPI(M) considers detrimental to farmers, workers and agricultural labourers.
The CPI(M) leadership maintains that Sarkar was advocating stronger democratic mobilisation against government policies and was not calling for violence or unlawful activities.
Choudhury argued that forceful expressions are often used by political leaders to motivate party workers and participants in mass movements. He contended that such rhetoric should not automatically be interpreted as an endorsement of violence without considering the broader context and intent of the speech.
The controversy intensified after the remarks were reportedly interpreted in some media reports as a call for making the movement more militant. Choudhury said the party did not blame the media for its choice of words but alleged that the BJP subsequently used this interpretation to initiate legal action against Sarkar.
These assertions represent the CPI(M)'s position on the controversy and the interpretation of the former Chief Minister’s remarks.
CPI(M) Questions BJP’s Interpretation of Sarkar’s Remarks
Choudhury strongly questioned what he described as an attempt to associate Sarkar’s speech with militancy, terrorism and violence. He referred to Sarkar’s two-decade tenure as Chief Minister of Tripura and argued that his administration had played a significant role in combating militancy and separatist activities in the state.
The CPI(M) leader also recalled the cooperation extended to the state by successive Central governments during efforts to address militancy, specifically mentioning the government led by former Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee and the role of then Union Home Minister Lal Krishna Advani.
According to Choudhury, Sarkar’s record in tackling militancy had received appreciation beyond Tripura. He questioned why the BJP, which he claimed had previously acknowledged those efforts, was now interpreting the former Chief Minister’s political remarks as grounds for legal action.
The CPI(M) has maintained that the speech should be assessed in the context of a democratic movement seeking policy changes rather than being treated as an endorsement of violence.
Choudhury Alleges Unequal Treatment of Police Complaints
The Leader of the Opposition also raised concerns about what he described as unequal treatment in the registration and investigation of police complaints involving political parties.
Choudhury alleged that complaints against individuals associated with the BJP over alleged threats, physical intimidation, attacks on party offices and other unlawful activities had not always resulted in the registration of FIRs or adequate police action.
He contrasted these allegations with the registration of the FIR against Sarkar over his protest speech and questioned the consistency of the police response in politically sensitive cases.
The allegations formed part of the CPI(M)'s broader criticism of the handling of political disputes and its concerns about the space available for opposition activities in Tripura. The claims regarding complaints against BJP-associated individuals are allegations made by the CPI(M) leadership and would require independent verification.
High Court Rejects Plea to Quash FIR
Manik Sarkar had approached the Tripura High Court seeking the quashing of the FIR registered in connection with his August 10 remarks. According to Choudhury, the matter was heard by a Division Bench comprising two judges, which declined to grant the relief sought by the former Chief Minister.
Choudhury said the court indicated that Sarkar could seek bail before the appropriate lower court. The CPI(M) leadership has expressed dissatisfaction with the outcome, maintaining that the observations made during the proceedings did not adequately account for the circumstances surrounding the speech or the former Chief Minister’s political record.
The party has decided to pursue the available legal remedies rather than accept the High Court's decision. The precise legal reasoning and operative directions of the High Court order will be central to the proposed challenge before the Supreme Court.
SLP to Seek Judicial Intervention
The proposed Special Leave Petition will seek the Supreme Court's intervention against the High Court order and relief from the FIR against Sarkar. Under Article 136 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court may, at its discretion, grant special leave to appeal against judgments, decrees, determinations, sentences or orders passed by courts and tribunals within its jurisdiction, subject to applicable legal requirements.
The CPI(M) intends to challenge the High Court's decision as well as the observations that accompanied it. However, the filing of an SLP does not automatically suspend or set aside the challenged order; any relief will depend on the Supreme Court's consideration of the matter and the orders it may pass.
Choudhury also alleged that Tripura had witnessed an atmosphere of political violence and undemocratic practices over the past eight and a half years. He expressed concern that the High Court's decision could embolden those whom the party holds responsible for such conditions.
The CPI(M) has characterised the legal action against Sarkar as a matter involving democratic political expression and the treatment of opposition voices. The party's proposed Supreme Court challenge is expected to seek judicial scrutiny of the FIR and the High Court's refusal to quash it.
As of October 14, the CPI(M) had announced its decision to move the Supreme Court. The outcome will depend on the grounds raised in the petition and the Supreme Court's subsequent consideration of the case.
more news...