Today, On 10th June, The Calcutta High Court declined an urgent hearing for a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that sought to prevent Justice Amrita Sinha from presiding over cases involving the police. The petition raised concerns of potential bias, citing that Justice Sinha’s husband had allegedly attempted to influence an investigation in a criminal matter. The court’s refusal to expedite the hearing means the judge will continue to oversee police-related cases for now.
Calcutta: The Calcutta High Court, On Monday, rejected a request for an urgent hearing of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition. The petition sought to prevent Justice Amrita Sinha from presiding over cases related to police action or inaction.
The petitioners alleged that Justice Sinha‘s husband had attempted to influence the investigation of a criminal case, suggesting potential bias. However, the division bench comprising Chief Justice TS Sivagnanam and Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya stated that the decision to assign cases falls under the Chief Justice’s administrative authority and is not open to judicial challenge.
Read Also: Calcutta HC permits Ram Navami procession in Howrah
Chief Justice Sivagnanam addressed the counsel who brought up the plea, saying,
“So you are questioning the decision of the Master of the Roster? The Chief Justice has assigned the cases and you are challenging it. How is a PIL maintainable? Tomorrow, you might say you dislike the court and demand we close this High Court. Is that possible?”
The petitioner’s counsel requested an urgent hearing, highlighting that Justice Sinha has already begun presiding over cases according to the new roster.
The counsel argued,
“Justice Sinha has been assigned cases concerning police actions or inactions. Previously, her spouse was accused of influencing a criminal investigation, an issue that reached the Supreme Court. Given this background, she should not oversee cases involving police actions or inactions,”
The court deemed the PIL to be unsustainable on this matter.
The Chief Justice explained,
“Even a writ petition will not be maintainable. Suppose a petitioner apprehends any bias against them, s/he can file an application stating the grounds on which the judge should not hear his or her case. But like this a PIL, we don’t think would be tenable,”
Furthermore, the Chief Justice advised the petitioner’s counsel to review several Supreme Court judgments which unequivocally affirm that the Chief Justice is the master of the roster.
Read Also: Petition Filed in Calcutta HC Seeks Protection for Bengal Opposition Workers
Justice Amrita Sinha, a respected figure in the judiciary, has been involved in numerous high-profile cases, earning a reputation for her thorough and meticulous approach to legal proceedings. Her critics, however, argue that her judicial record shows a pattern that could be perceived as partiality towards law enforcement agencies, thus warranting scrutiny.
In conclusion, while the Calcutta High Court opted not to expedite the hearing of the PIL against Justice Amrita Sinha, the matter remains a point of contention and discussion within legal and public spheres.
The court’s decision highlights the principle of judicial independence and the need to maintain the impartiality of the judiciary. The assignment of cases is an administrative matter within the Chief Justice‘s purview, and the court upheld this process as not subject to judicial intervention.