The Supreme Court in the case Abhishek Banerjee v. Soumen Nandy observed wherein a plea is moved challenging the order passed by Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay of the Calcutta High Court through which Justice Abhijit directed the CBI and the ED to question TMC national general secretary Abhishek Banerjee in the case of Recruitment Primary Teachers’ Scam case, wherein it has orally been remarked by the court that the judges had no right to give TV interviews on the matters which are pending.
The division bench comprising of CJI DY Chandrachud and Justice PS Narasimha was hearing the present matter.
In the present case, it has been directed by the Apex Court to stay on all actions against Banerjee in pursuance of the directions which are being passed by Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay. The counsel, Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for Banerjee urged the court while taking into account the interview of Justice Gangopadhyay’s with ABP Ananda wherein it has been alleged by him to spoke against Banerjee.
Therefore, it has also been argued by Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi with the greatest respect and humility and the same cannot be done. Thus, the same was being said in presence of our lawyers and the said statement has not been clarified or revoked by the single judge
The bench of CJI DY Chandrachud in its order stated that the order seek for clarification as to whether the purported statements were made by the single judge or not.
Further, the court in its order stated that the petitioner in the plea has annexed a translated transcript of an interview of Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay on a TV Channel ABP Ananda. Thus, the court directed the Registrar General of Calcutta High Court to clarify from the judge as to whether he had been interviewed by Mr Suman De. Therefore, the Registrar general has been directed for filing his affidavit before this court on or before Friday.
The bench of CJI DY Chandrachud in its order stated that while the said court was not getting into the merits of the case as of yet, the same being important to know if Justice Gangopadhyay had granted the said interview or not.
It has also been stated by him that that the judges have no business granting interviews on matters which are being pending. If it has been stated by him about the petitioner, he has no such business while participating in the proceedings. Therefore, the question being whether a judge who has made such kind of statements about a political personality – should the judge be allowed to participate in the hearings? There need to be some process.
