Today morning, Calcutta High Court bench comprising Justice Sen and Justice Udayakumar went a step further by dismissing the FIR filed by the CBI, effectively overturning Justice Gangopadhyay‘s directive.
Today, in a remarkable and highly unusual development within the Calcutta High Court, witnessed an extraordinary clash between two of its judges, Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay and Justice Soumen Sen. This unprecedented incident has sent shockwaves through the legal community and has raised serious questions about judicial conduct and impartiality.
The conflict erupted over a case concerning admission irregularities in government medical colleges in West Bengal. Justice Gangopadhyay had initially ordered a CBI investigation into the alleged corruption, expressing a lack of confidence in the state police to handle the matter effectively.
“That is why he is giving responsibility to CBI,”
he stated, highlighting his concerns about the integrity of the state’s law enforcement.
However, the situation took a dramatic turn when Justice Sen, sitting on a Division Bench, issued a stay on Justice Gangopadhyay’s order. The following morning, a bench comprising Justice Sen and Justice Udayakumar went a step further by dismissing the FIR filed by the CBI, effectively overturning Justice Gangopadhyay’s directive.
In response, Justice Gangopadhyay issued a counter order against Justice Sen and made a startling accusation of ‘political bias’ against him. He alleged that Justice Sen was acting with ‘political interests involved’ and questioned his motives in the courtroom.
“What he is doing, he is doing it for ‘political purpose’,”
Justice Gangopadhyay asserted, even raising the possibility of starting the impeachment process against Justice Sen.
Justice Gangopadhyay shared the details of what he had ordered,
“Justice Sen said firstly, Abhishek Banerjee has a political future. He cannot be disturbed. Secondly, the live streaming of the hearing in the bench of Justice Amrita Singh should be stopped. Thirdly, Justice Singh should dismiss the two primary cases as well.”
Also read- Calcutta High Court Upholds Press Freedom | Grants Anticipatory Bail To Journalist (lawchakra.in)
The controversy deepened when Justice Gangopadhyay revealed that he had received ‘information’ from Justice Amrita Sinha of the Calcutta High Court, which he also shared with the Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. According to Justice Gangopadhyay, Justice Sen had instructed Justice Sinha in a manner akin to a political leader, advising her on how to handle cases involving Abhishek Banerjee, the All India General Secretary of the ruling Trinamool party in the state.
Justice Gangopadhyay has issued a directive concerning this matter, suggesting the initiation of impeachment proceedings against Justice Sen. He raised a critical question,
“Supreme Court has ordered the transfer of Justice Sen a long time ago. Despite this, why is he not being transferred for two years?”
This query comes in the context of the Supreme Court’s recommendation two years prior, proposing Justice Sen’s relocation to the Odisha High Court. Expressing his bewilderment over the lack of action on this recommendation, Justice Gangopadhyay stated,
“But it is unknown why he was not transferred.”
He plans to urge the Chief Justice of India to investigate this issue, noting that other judges have been relocated as per similar recommendations. He is also keen to uncover any influences that might be hindering Justice Sen’s transfer.
Justice Gangopadhyay did not mince words in his courtroom, stating,
“Justice Sen is clearly working for a political party. He is trying to save some politicians. So the Supreme Court should reject all his (Judge Sen’s) orders.“
This incident has not only caused a stir in the Calcutta High Court but also poses significant questions about judicial independence and the influence of political interests in legal proceedings. The legal fraternity and the public alike are keenly observing how this extraordinary situation will unfold and what implications it will have for the judiciary’s credibility and the rule of law in India.