Today(on 6th June), during the High Court’s summer vacation, a Division Bench will address a counter-PIL questioning Justice Sinha’s impartiality in police cases. The litigant’s concerns highlight doubts over Justice Sinha’s ability to judge such cases fairly, escalating the dispute.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!![[BREAKING] Is Justice Amrita Singh Biased? | Cal HC Addresses PIL](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/1704277987_amrita.jpg?resize=820%2C547&ssl=1)
KOLKATA: A counter-public interest litigation (PIL) has been filed in response to a case brought against Calcutta High Court Judge Amrita Sinha, raising questions about the judge’s impartiality.This legal action has raised doubts about Justice Sinha’s capability to impartially handle cases involving the police.
The litigant who filed the counter-PIL has openly expressed concerns about Justice Sinha’s impartiality. The main issue at hand is whether Justice Sinha can judge police-related cases impartially. This matter has now become a significant point of contention.
Currently, the High Court is on its summer vacation, but this case is set to be heard by the Division Bench of the High Court during the vacation session on today(6th June). The court’s regular sessions are scheduled to resume on June 10, following the summer break. It is customary for the ‘roster’ of judges to change after such vacations, meaning the types of cases judges handle often shift post-vacation.
Before the vacation, Justice Sinha was responsible for hearing various panchayat and municipal cases at the High Court. However, with the recent change in the court’s roster, Justice Sinha has been assigned to handle cases involving police inaction and over-action. This new assignment is slated to begin from the first day after the vacation ends.
The counter-PIL has brought to light significant doubts regarding Justice Sinha’s ability to remain unbiased in her new role. The litigant’s concerns about her impartiality add another layer of complexity to the judicial proceedings. As the court prepares to address these concerns, the legal community and the public are keenly observing the developments.
The central question remains “whether Justice Sinha can impartially adjudicate police-related cases”. The upcoming hearing on Today(6th June), amidst the court’s vacation, holds immense significance in shaping the outcome of this debate. The Division Bench’s deliberation on the matter carries substantial implications for both the judiciary and the cases under Justice Sinha’s purview.
ALSO READ: SC Disposes of Case Against Justice Amrita Sinha’s Husband, Cites Political Motives in FIR
As the court prepares to resume its regular sessions on June 10th.
The Supreme Court recently disposed of a case involving Justice Sinha’s husband, Pratap Chandra Dey, raising questions about judicial impartiality in an upcoming police case. The sequence of events began when Pratap Chandra Dey, a lawyer, lodged a complaint against the CID of the state police, alleging harassment during an interrogation related to a family matter.
Justice Sinha’s husband, Pratap Chandra Dey, had reported-
“The police harassed me in the name of interrogation.”
This complaint led to a legal matter, which culminated in the Supreme Court’s involvement. A few days ago, the Supreme Court resolved the matter, although the details of the resolution remain unspecified.
However, the resolution of this case has not quelled all concerns. The litigant involved has expressed doubts about the impartiality of Justice Sinha in future police-related cases, considering her husband’s recent experiences with the police.
The litigant questioned-
“Will the judge whose husband had filed harassment charges against the police be able to maintain impartiality if he is allowed to try the police case?”
This situation brings to light the broader issue of judicial impartiality and the mechanisms in place to ensure fairness in the judiciary. Historically, there have been instances where the impartiality of judges has been questioned.
“If a judge’s judgment is not liked, questioning his impartiality, dharna in front of the assembly, boycotting the assembly, even, petitioning the Chief Justice to remove the case from that assembly – all have happened in the past,”
– noted a legal expert familiar with such proceedings.
Nevertheless, the current scenario appears unprecedented in its preemptive nature. Many legal observers are concerned that questioning the impartiality of a judge and filing a public interest case before the case even starts in the courtroom sets a new and potentially troubling precedent.
One observer remarked-
“It is unprecedented to challenge a judge’s impartiality and file a public interest case before the case even commences in the courtroom.”
The resolution of Pratap Chandra Dey’s harassment complaint has inadvertently opened a new chapter in the discourse on judicial fairness. It underscores the delicate balance judges must maintain between personal affiliations and their professional responsibilities.
