Calcutta HC lawyers protest outside acting CJ’s court; bar association divided
Justice Bhattacharyya had reacted sharply on July 16 when technical glitches disrupted the virtual hearing of the civil case and he passed a strongly-worded order on July 19 after finding out that the case was transferred to the division bench of justice Tandon.
The stand off in Calcutta high court over the acting chief justice Rajesh Bindal’s decision to transfer a case from justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya’s court to a division bench showed no sign of resolution on Wednesday as a group of lawyers protested outside the acting chief justice’s court after having decided to stay away from his court a day earlier. However, on Tuesday evening, another section of bar association members said they will not abstain from proceedings in the chief justice’s court and will instead wait for an amicable solution of the issue.
The protesting lawyers are demanding that justice Bindal recalls the transfer of a civil case from the court of justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya to the division bench headed by justice Harish Tandon on July 19. The incident triggered a strong reaction and on July 22, some members of the bar association convened a meeting and wrote a four-page letter to justice Bindal.
“We are extremely shocked that the moment justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya questioned why measures were not taken to improve the quality of virtual hearing, the same matter was suddenly assigned to a division bench. It is extremely apparent that the sudden assignment to a division bench was made only for the reason that justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya questioned the administrative side of the high court for not doing their required job…..” wrote the lawyers.
Justice IP Mukherjee, who is a member of the five-judge bench headed by justice Bindal, on Monday held a meeting with members of the bar association but no solution was found.
On Tuesday afternoon, many general members of the bar association met in the presence of assistant secretary Ritzu Ghosal, the treasurer and four members of the executive committee. The meeting was chaired by senior advocate Saptangsu Basu.
“Since the issue was not resolved, the general members resolved unanimously in today’s meeting that the general members shall abstain from participating in judicial proceedings before the honourable acting chief justice till the matter is resolved,” said the resolution which was forwarded to justice Bindal.
Copies of the resolution were forwarded to advocate general Kishore Dutta, the bar library club and the Incorporated Law Society of the high court.
“The members said that assignment of the case to a division bench is not in conformity with appellate side rules as well as rules framed by the administrative full court of the high court,” Ghosal, who signed the resolution and the forwarding letter, told HT.
Hours later on Tuesday evening, another section of bar association members virtually held a general body meeting, presided by the association’s acting vice-president Ajay Chaubey.
This section of the members passed a resolution saying they would review the situation after 15 days and make efforts to resolve the issue amicably instead of abstaining from proceedings in the court of justice Bindal. The resolution was made public on Tuesday night.
Referring to the issue of assignment of the civil case to a division bench, the resolution said the matter was being “considered by the judges’ committee.”
The sequence of events started on July 19. Justice Bhattacharyya, who had reacted sharply on July 16 when technical glitches disrupted the virtual hearing of the civil case, passed a strongly-worded order when he found that the case was transferred to the division bench of justice Tandon.
In his 10-page order, justice Bhattacharyya criticised the court administration as well as acting chief justice on whose orders the case was assigned.
“There is doubt as to whether the chief justice/acting chief justice, in her/his administrative capacity as the Master of the Roster, can override a judicial order passed by a bench having determination fixed by the chief justice/acting chief justice herself/himself and the file of the matter be assigned to some other court overnight,” justice Bhattacharyya wrote in his order on July 19.