Calcutta High Court Chief Justice felt ‘ashamed, sorry’ due to the judges’ spat, leading to the reassignment of cases for the sake of court reputation and harmony.
The Calcutta High Court has become the epicenter of an unprecedented legal confrontation, drawing nationwide attention and reaching the Supreme Court. This situation marks a rare instance where disputes between justices have escalated to such a degree, underscoring the gravity of the situation.
Chief Justice T.S. Thakur of the Calcutta High Court has openly expressed his dismay over the escalating tension between the single-judge bench and the division bench.
ALSO READ: https://lawchakra.in/calcutta-high-court-reassign-case-justicegangopadhyay/
In a poignant statement, Chief Justice Thakur remarked,
“I am saddened and embarrassed by what has transpired. Such things are not expected in the temple of law.”
This sentiment reflects the deep concern over the integrity and functioning of one of India’s most prestigious judicial institutions.
Adding to the chorus of concern, Justice Shivagnanam, another prominent figure in the Calcutta High Court, voiced his commitment to restoring normalcy. “We are making every effort to normalize the situation. I hope the situation will return to normal,” he stated, highlighting the efforts being made to resolve the crisis.
The root of the conflict can be traced back to an order issued on January 24 by Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay of the single-judge bench. This order, which called for a CBI investigation into the alleged use of fake caste certificates for medical college admissions in West Bengal, set off a chain of judicial disagreements. The situation intensified when, on the following day, Justice Gangopadhyay dismissed an FIR, leading to further complications.
The dispute between Justice Sen and Justice Gangopadhyay escalated rapidly. Justice Gangopadhyay’s strong objections and accusations against Justice Sen for passing politically biased orders added fuel to the fire. He also brought up an incident involving Justice Sen and Justice Amrita Sinha, alleging inappropriate conduct related to school job cases in West Bengal.
The Supreme Court, recognizing the severity of the dispute, has now intervened. On January 27, a five-judge bench, led by the Chief Justice of India, took cognizance of the matter. The bench imposed a stay on all proceedings pending before the Calcutta High Court, signaling the Supreme Court’s commitment to resolving this unprecedented judicial conflict.
Chief Justice T S Sivagnanam, addressing the situation, expressed his deep regret.
“I am ashamed and sorry,”
he said, acknowledging the severity of the events that unfolded in the court.
ALSO READ: https://lawchakra.in/calcutta-high-court-grants-approval-for-termination-of-23-week-pregnancy/
He emphasized the need to restore dignity and order, referring to the situation as “untoward” and “undesirable in a temple of law.” His comments underscore the potential long-term impact on public perception and trust in the judiciary.
The high court witnessed an extraordinary conflict last Thursday, involving two benches and the state advocate-general, Kishore Datta. The conflict, marked by heated exchanges and political allegations, was a public display of the internal crisis.
Justice Sen, responding to Justice Gangopadhyay’s allegations, broke his silence. “Enough is enough. This court has been insulted,” he declared, emphasizing the impartiality of the judiciary and the limited rights of judges to speak to the media.
The Supreme Court’s intervention, with a five-member bench led by CJI D Y Chandrachud, aims to put a stop to the judge-versus-judge clash. The bench has transferred the case to itself, indicating the seriousness with which the apex court is treating this matter.
The ongoing legal battle in the Calcutta High Court and its escalation to the Supreme Court is a significant event in India’s judicial history. It highlights the challenges faced by the judiciary in maintaining impartiality, integrity, and public trust. The resolution of this conflict will be closely watched, as it will set a precedent for handling such disputes in the future.
