In a significant legal development, the Calcutta High Court conducted an extraordinary late evening hearing to address the contentious arrest of advocate Prosenjit Mukherjee, who was detained inside the courtroom. This unprecedented session, convened at 8:30 pm, was overseen by Justices Harish Tandon and Hiranmay Bhattacharya, following an urgent plea by Mukherjee.
Also read-Punjab High Court Revisits Policemen’s Dismissal, Highlights Misuse Of UAPA And PMLA (lawchakra.in)
The incident that led to Mukherjee’s arrest unfolded in the courtroom of Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay. Mukherjee, in the course of proceedings, referred to a division-bench judgment that had modified an earlier order of the single-judge bench. This action prompted Justice Gangopadhyay to order Mukherjee’s arrest for alleged criminal contempt, a decision that swiftly ignited controversy within the legal fraternity. In response, the Calcutta High Court Bar Association called for Chief Justice TS Sivagnanam to reassign all judicial work from Justice Gangopadhyay and resolved to boycott his courtroom until an apology was extended to Mukherjee and the Bar members.
During the late evening hearing, the division bench scrutinized the events and Mukherjee’s letter. They observed,
“The reliance upon the order of Division Bench cannot be perceived a contumacious act nor would tarnish the majesty and sanctity of the Court.”
The bench underscored the sanctity of the judicial process, emphasizing that the administration of justice is a collective responsibility of both the bench and the bar.
The division bench delved into various Supreme Court judgments, highlighting the importance of judicial restraint and discipline in maintaining the orderliness of justice administration. They remarked,
“Administration of justice is not something which concerns the Bench only. It concerns the Bar as well. The Court should also maintain a judicial restraint and discipline as necessary to the orderly administration of justice as they are all to be effectiveness of the army. The duty of restraint humility should be a constant theme of our Judges.”
This statement reflects a profound understanding of the symbiotic relationship between the judiciary and legal practitioners.
In their decision, the bench stayed the single-judge’s order that had directed Mukherjee to undergo three days of civil imprisonment, despite his repeated unconditional apologies to Justice Gangopadhyay. The bench’s intervention was based on the principle that the administration of justice must remain pure and unpolluted, and that lawyers have a duty to protect their clients’ interests fearlessly and honorably.
This case, Prosenjit Mukherjee Vs. Aparna Modak and others (Case No: MAT 2479 of 2023), marks a pivotal moment in the annals of the Calcutta High Court. It not only highlights the tension between judicial authority and legal rights but also demonstrates the judiciary’s commitment to upholding justice and fairness. The decision to stay the arrest of Mukherjee is a testament to the court’s responsiveness to the concerns of the legal community and its dedication to maintaining the integrity of the judicial process.
