Justice Amrita Sinha’s bench has transitioned from handling police-related cases to focusing on primary school matters. This shift in responsibilities occurred shortly after the court’s June 10 roster update, indicating a strategic realignment in judicial assignments.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
KOLKATA: At the Calcutta High Court, significant changes have been announced concerning the allocation of cases to Justice Amrita Sinha’s bench. Initially appointed to manage cases related to police activities, Justice Sinha will now preside over cases concerning primary schools, marking a notable shift in responsibilities following recent judiciary roster adjustments.
The modifications came into effect shortly after the High Court’s roster was updated on June 10, which originally assigned police-related cases, including those addressing police “inaction” and “overaction”, to Justice Sinha’s review. However, less than a month later, a subsequent announcement on Friday(on 12th July), revealed a shift in her responsibilities. Starting Monday, Justice Sinha will instead focus on cases pertaining to primary education.
This decision aligns with the recent transfer of Justice Rajasekhar Mantha from the Single Bench to the Division Bench, which prompted a reevaluation of case assignments among the judges. Previously, Justice Mantha dealt with primary school cases, which will now be overseen by Justice Sinha. This includes high-profile cases such as the Tate recruitment corruption scandal.
ALSO READ: [BREAKING] Is Justice Amrita Sinha Biased? | Cal HC Addresses PIL
Meanwhile, the police-related cases previously under Justice Sinha’s purview will be transferred to the bench of Justice Rajarshi Bhardwaj. Despite these changes, it’s reported that the majority of case allocations among other judges at the High Court remain largely unchanged. Only a few judges have experienced modifications to their schedules concerning pending cases on their benches.
The reasons behind these abrupt schedule modifications have not been explicitly detailed by the High Court. However, sources suggest that the adjustments were part of a broader strategy to better align case types with the specialized expertise of respective judges, thereby enhancing the efficiency and effectiveness of judicial proceedings.
