The Supreme Court showed reluctance to consider Trinamool Congress MP Abhishek Banerjee’s plea for ‘necessary action’ against Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay, a judge at the Calcutta High Court, regarding ‘politically motivated’ interviews.
Abhishek Banerjee’s Request Against Calcutta HC Judge for Politically motivated Interviews
Delhi: On February 9th, the Supreme Court of India took a view regarding a plea by Trinamool Congress MP Abhishek Banerjee. The plea sought action against Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay of the Calcutta High Court for allegedly engaging in politically motivated interviews.
Background of the Controversy
Abhishek Banerjee, serving as the National General Secretary of the Trinamool Congress, filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution. The petition aimed at seeking “necessary action” against Justice Gangopadhyay for his interviews, which Banerjee claimed were politically motivated. Additionally, Banerjee requested the transfer of cases concerning him from the current bench to a special bench, aiming to ensure an unbiased judicial process.
Read Also: Government Unable to Delay Goa Seafood Festival: Bomaby High Court Notified
The bench, led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, alongside Justices Manoj Mishra and Satish Chandra Sharma, expressed dissatisfaction with the request for action against Justice Gangopadhyay. However, it agreed to consider other reliefs sought in the petition. The court decided to tag Banerjee’s petition with the suo motu case initiated by the Supreme Court, which involved transferring cases related to the medical admissions scam from the Calcutta High Court to the apex court.
Justice Gangopadhyay’s actions, including defying a stay order by a division bench on his directive for a CBI probe into alleged irregularities in medical admissions, have stirred controversy. His allegations against fellow judge Justice Soumen Sen, accusing him of political bias, further complicated the judicial landscape.
Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, addressing Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, who represented Banerjee, highlighted the court’s reluctantness to issue a notice of action against a high court judge based on allegations of politically motivated interviews.
In today’s hearing, Chief Justice Chandrachud expressed reservations about considering a request for action against a sitting high court judge for his statements.
Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing the TMC leader, remarked,
“You’re seeking a writ of mandamus to take action against a judge for ‘politically motivated’ interviews. We shouldn’t be issuing notice on this.”
Singhvi, the senior counsel, agreed to focus solely on the plea to transfer the proceedings to a single-judge bench headed by Justice Amrita Sinha of the Calcutta High Court. Last year, the cash-for-jobs scam case was moved to Justice Sinha’s bench from Justice Gangopadhyay’s amidst the television interview controversy.
Singhvi elaborated,
“Justice Gangopadhyay has now alleged that Justice Soumen Sen has communicated with Justice Amrita Sinha, influencing proceedings. These cases also need either transfer or consideration by Your Lordships.”
On the same day, Justice Gangopadhyay ordered the Supreme Court’s secretary general to provide him with the translation of a controversial media interview submitted earlier. Later, during a special 8 p.m. session, the Supreme Court stated that it shouldn’t have been issued in a judicial proceeding, especially considering judicial discipline.
Case Title: Abhishek Banerjee v. Union of India & Ors.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON X
