TMC leader Kunal Ghosh’s lawyer challenges legality of contempt proceedings. Says special bench was not properly constituted by Chief Justice.
Kolkata: Today, on June 23, a controversy has arisen over the contempt of court proceedings against Trinamool Congress (TMC) leader Kunal Ghosh, with his lawyer questioning the legal validity of the case.
On Monday, senior advocate Kalyan Bandyopadhyay appeared before a three-judge bench of the Calcutta High Court and raised strong objections, saying,
“This bench has no jurisdiction to issue a contempt of court rule.”
The case in question was initiated over alleged contempt committed against Justice Biswajit Bose and the alleged harassment of senior advocates Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharya and Firdous Shamim.
The Calcutta High Court had formed a special three-judge bench and issued a suo motu rule against Kunal Ghosh and seven others in connection with the matter.
However, the maintainability of the case has now been brought into question by Ghosh’s counsel.
TMC spokesperson Kunal Ghosh appeared before the court on June 16 in compliance with the notice served to him following the rule issued by the High Court.
However, the hearing could not proceed as one of the three judges on the bench was absent due to illness.
The bench observed that for the time being, Ghosh would not be required to attend court unless specifically summoned. The matter was adjourned.
On Monday, Advocate Kalyan Bandyopadhyay submitted that no proper authority had been exercised to form this special bench.
He stated,
“We have not received any order from the Chief Justice to constitute this special bench. If I have made any mistake, I apologise unconditionally.”
He further questioned the administrative basis for forming the bench and initiating contempt proceedings, asserting that such action requires a specific judicial process.
Bandyopadhyay added,
“The Chief Justice’s order to set up a special bench is an administrative order. There he did not mention any process to initiate a contempt case. The Chief Justice did not issue any rule. If the Chief Justice does not issue a rule, this court has no jurisdiction to issue a rule.”
The legal team for Ghosh is contending that the suo motu contempt proceedings are not legally valid and must be reviewed in light of judicial procedure and administrative authority.
Contempt of Court in India: Legal Actions and Consequences
Types of Contempt:
Under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, contempt is classified into two types:
- Civil Contempt: Willful disobedience of any court order, judgment, or direction.
- Criminal Contempt: Acts that scandalize the court, interfere with judicial proceedings, or obstruct justice.
Punishment
Both civil and criminal contempt are punishable with:
- Imprisonment up to 6 months, or
- Fine up to Rs 2,000, or
- Both, depending on the court’s discretion (Section 12 of the Act).
Apology and Relief
The court may drop proceedings if the accused offers a bona fide and unconditional apology. However, apologies submitted just to avoid punishment may not be accepted.
Action Against Professionals
- Advocates may face suspension or disbarment under the Advocates Act, 1961.
- Government officials may face service record penalties, departmental action, or suspension.
Right to Appeal
Any person punished for contempt has a right to appeal to a higher court.
Available Defences
- Truth is a valid defence if made in public interest and good faith (as per 2006 amendment).
- Fair criticism of judicial decisions is allowed, provided it doesn’t obstruct justice.
Click Here to Read More Reports On CONTEMPT OF COURT
Case Title:
In Re:– Suo Motu Proceedings by Hon’ble Court No. 1 with CRLCP 7 of 2025; In Re:– Court on its own motion: Raju Das & Ors.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
