E-Paper
SC stays proceedings before two Calcutta HC benches after row between judges
Two benches of the high court passed contradictory orders on a petition, with the larger bench on Thursday finally declaring the single judge’s orders void ab initio and quashing an FIR that CBI had lodged as per the single judge’s directive
A five-judge bench of the Supreme Court stayed all proceedings pending before two benches in the Calcutta high court that witnessed an unprecedented face-off between two judges there, observing that the turn of events warranted the court’s intervention.
The apex court also put in abeyance the direction issued by the single judge for an investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) into an alleged fake caste certificate scam despite the division bench annulling the probe order.
“We have taken charge now...this order will suffice the interest of justice for the time being,” said the bench, headed by Chief Justice of India Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, as it took up the proceedings drawn on its own motion in a special Saturday hearing.
The bench, which also comprised the four most senior judges – justices Sanjiv Khanna, Bhushan R Gavai, Surya Kant and Aniruddha Bose, issued notices to the West Bengal government and the CBI, seeking their replies by January 29 when the court will hear the matter again.
“Pending further orders of this court, there shall be a stay of all proceedings in the writ petition pending before the single judge and the appeal pending before the division bench in the Calcutta high court. The implementation of the direction by single judge on January 24 and 25 shall also remain stayed,” said the bench in its order.
It also issued notice to the writ petitioner before the high court on whose plea the single judge had on January 24 directed the CBI to investigate into the alleged scam. This order, however, sparked an unparallel judicial drama that did not only leave the state government and the CBI in a tizzy over contradictory orders but also saw the single judge hurling allegations of political influence at the judge leading the division bench.
During the brief proceedings on Saturday, the state government, represented by senior counsel Kapil Sibal told the bench that the state has also filed an appeal against the order of the CBI probe by the single judge and that it should be taken up along with the suo motu proceedings on January 29. Senior counsel Huzefa Ahmadi and Sunil Fernandes also appeared for the state in the matter.
While the bench agreed to list the state’s appeal, the Union government, represented through attorney general R Venkataramani and solicitor general (S-G) Tushar Mehta, urged the court to also examine the judicial propriety of the order passed by the division bench on January 24. The law officers pointed out that the division bench opted to suspend the order of the single judge without there being any appeal formally filed by the state government. According to Mehta, a 1985 judgment by the Supreme Court clearly spelled out that a larger bench cannot interfere with an order when there was no formal appeal memo before it.
Responding, the bench said: “We will reserve everything for later. We don’t want to even make a prima facie determination at this stage. Sometimes, there are exceptional circumstances, but we don’t want to say anything right now.” The court permitted the S-G to submit a note on the procedural aspect.
At one point of the hearing, senior counsel Abhishek Manu Singhvi told the court that he was appearing for TMC member of Parliament (MP) Abhishek Banerjee, who had filed an application bringing to the court’s notice some contentious remarks passed by the single judge in question. Singhvi said his client would be filing a fresh writ petition in this regard.
On Wednesday and Thursday, the two benches of the high court passed contradictory orders on a petition alleging corruption in admission of students at medical colleges using fake caste certificates, with the larger bench on Thursday finally declaring the single judge’s orders void ab initio (legally void from the start) and quashing an FIR that CBI had lodged as per the single judge’s directive.
Later, on Thursday, the single judge bench of justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay directly targeted the judge heading the division bench, justice Soumen Sen, recording in his order that the latter was acting at the behest of a political party. “Justice Sen is acting clearly for some political party in the state and, therefore, the orders passed in the matters involving the state, are required to be relooked if the Hon’ble Supreme Court thinks so,” justice Gangopadhyay said.
The chain of events before the high court started rolling on Wednesday when the single bench of justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay ordered CBI to probe allegations levelled by a writ petitioner, Itisha Soren, alleging issuance of certificates of reserved caste candidates and use of those for admission in medical colleges.
Although Soren did not ask for a CBI probe, justice Gangopadhyay said that when a scam is peeping its head, it is the duty of the court to pass appropriate order for a thorough investigation in the matter, irrespective of whether the writ petitioner has prayed for a CBI inquiry or not.
The judge further said that the special investigation team (SIT), constituted by virtue of another order of his court to investigate an alleged scam relating to recruitment of teachers in the state, will probe the present case, and that the Enforcement Directorate (ED) may also come in if there is evidence of money trail.
While directing that the documents adduced before his bench by the state’s advocate general Kishore Datta be handed over to CBI, justice Gangopadhyay also criticised the state police for not being able to arrest the accused involved in an attack on ED officials at Sandeshkhali when officials went to search the premises of Trinamool Congress leader Shajahan Sheikh in connection with an alleged ration distribution scam case in the state’s North 24 Parganas district.
Justice Gangopadhyay called a CBI officer to his court at 2.30pm on Wednesday to receive a copy of the documents relating to the case.
Aggrieved by the CBI probe order, the state government immediately moved the division bench of justices Soumen Sen and Uday Kumar on Wednesday afternoon. The state’s advocate general Datta argued that the state was not allowed by the single bench to place documents relating to the alleged corruption and show that the government has taken steps to investigate the issuance of fake caste certificates.
Acting on the state’s appeal, the division bench ordered a stay on the CBI probe for two weeks and said the case will be heard again on Thursday morning. This bench also directed the registrar general of the high court to inform CBI that the agency’s presence at 2.30pm on Wednesday was not necessary.
However, a CBI official appeared before the single judge bench on Wednesday at 2.30pm and justice Gangopadhyay handed over all the papers to the agency official despite an order of stay passed by the division bench a short while ago. Justice Gangopadhyay’s order noted that although the petitioner had submitted that the matter was mentioned before the appeal court on behalf of the state, his bench had no such information from the state counsel.
Going ahead, CBI on Thursday registered an FIR as per the single judge’s order, but the division bench disapproved of it.
On Thursday morning, the division bench was informed by the advocate general that despite a stay order, CBI was given all the documents to start an investigation. This time, the larger bench took an exception to CBI going ahead with the probe in the case.
“In view of the fact that we have stayed the order passed during the first half of 24th January, 2024, the subsequent order passed by the learned single judge during the second half of the day is void ab initio,” said the division bench order passed on Thursday afternoon.
The order further directed CBI to immediately return all the documents received a day ago to the state counsel, adding the agency shall not proceed with the matter any further. “The FIR, if any registered, shall, accordingly, stand quashed,” said the division bench, extending its Wednesday order of stay by another four weeks. The division bench also sought an explanation from the high court registrar general why CBI was not informed its official did not have to receive the documents from the single judge because the order of the agency probe had been stayed.
Later in the day, justice Gangopadhyay again took up the matter for hearing and questioned the legality of the stay granted by the division bench since no appeal had been filed in writing. “In the said order (granting stay) I have not found any recording of any urgency in the matter. What was so urgent?” justice Gangopadhyay said in his order.
The judge further stated, “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 division bench for the reasons as has been stated above, including the ground of ‘interested person Hon’ble Justice Soumen Sen’.”
