E-Paper
Judge vs judge matter: Supreme Court stays all proceedings before Calcutta high court
The two benches in Calcutta High Court reproached each other in back-to-back orders on January 24 and 25. The matter has been kept for hearing on January 29.
The Supreme Court stayed all proceedings before the two benches in the Calcutta high court that saw a rare conflict between a single judge and a division bench over a CBI probe into an alleged fake caste certificate scam. The two benches reproached each other in back-to-back orders on January 24 and 25. A five-judge constitution bench comprising CJI DY Chandrachud and justices Sanjiv Khanna, BR Gavai, Surya Kant and Aniruddha Bose heard the matter in a special hearing and kept for hearing on January 29.
On Friday, the Supreme Court took suo moto cognisance of an order passed by a single bench of the Calcutta high court that termed as "illegal and ignored" an order of the division bench in a case of alleged irregularities in the admission of MBBS candidates in state-run medical colleges and hospitals in West Bengal.
The division bench of the high court had stayed the single bench's order for a Central Bureau of Investigation probe into the matter.
What is justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay vs justice Soumen Sen issue?
- Initially, the single bench of justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay had directed a Central Bureau of Investigation probe into the alleged irregularities in the admission of MBBS candidates in medical colleges and hospitals in West Bengal saying it had no faith in the state police on a plea filed by MBBS candidate Itisha Soren.
- Later, the West Bengal government moved the division bench of the Calcutta high court. The division bench of justices Soumen Sen and Uday Kumar then stayed the single bench's order for the CBI probe into the matter.
- On Thursday, a single-judge bench of justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay held that the order passed by the division bench as wholly illegal and had to be ignored.
- Justice Gangopadhyay also took the matter and asked the advocate general how without the impugned order an order of stay could be passed by a division bench and how an order could be passed when there was no memo of appeal.
- Justice Gangopadhyay, in his order, has accused justice Sen, who is heading the division bench, of acting for a political party in the state, and therefore, the orders passed by the bench led by justice Sen are required to be relooked if the Supreme Court thinks so.
- "I have no other option but to ignore the order of the said Division Bench as the order has been passed in continuation of the illegal appeal void ab initio. I have ignored the said illegal order passed by the said Division Bench for the reasons as has been stated above including the ground of 'interested person' Hon'ble Justice Soumen Sen… "Thus, Justice Sen is acting clearly for some political party in this State and, therefore, the orders passed in the matters involving State, are required to be relooked if the Hon'ble Supreme Court thinks so," justice Gangopadhyay said.
(With inputs from agencies)
