The Supreme Court in the case Re: Orders Of Calcutta High Court dated 24.01.2024 and 25.01.2024 and ancillary issues observed wherein the 5-judge bench of the Supreme Court transferred to itself the case from the Calcutta High Court in which unusual developments took place after the single bench of the High Court defied a stay order which is passed by a division bench on CBI investigation.
The Supreme Court in the case observed and has taken the suo motu cognizance of the matter, after an order was passed by the bench of Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay of the Calcutta High Court ignoring an order which is passed by a division bench wherein it stayed the CBI investigation ordered by Justice Gangopadhyay into alleged irregularities in medical admissions in the State of West Bengal.
The Supreme Court in the case observed and has stayed the proceedings in the writ petition before the single bench and the Letters Patent Appeal before the division bench.
The five-judge bench headed by Supreme Court presided over by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and comprising of Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Justice BR Gavai, Justice Surya Kant, and Justice Aniruddha Bose in the case observed and has decided to transfer the matter to the Supreme Court.
The counsel, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the State of West Bengal, submitted before the court that the single judge has been passing similar orders. Thus, the said judge continues to take these matters now, in future he will do the same thing. What should be done?
Further, Sibal stated that What should be done? that the State has filed a compilation of documents wherein it shows that the public meeting and rallies allegedly attended by the judge.
The counsel, Senior Advocate Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for TMC MP Abhishek Banerjee, reminded the bench about the order passed by the Supreme Court last year in April after the single judge gave a television interview about a sub judice matter.
The bench headed by CJI Chandrachud in the case observed and has appealed to the lawyers to refrain from making comments casting aspersions on the judge.
The bench of CJI stated that let’s not…after all we are dealing with a High Court judge…casting aspersions on either judge would be improper…anything we say here shall not impinge on the dignity of the High Court.
Adding to it, CJI stated that it is Chief Justice of the high court who is allocating cases. Let us not arrogate his powers.
Therefore, the State has filed a Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court wherein it challenged the order of single bench’s for CBI investigation.
On the other hand, the counsel, Senior Advocate Maninder Singh, appearing for a federation of SC/ST students stated that they will also be filing a separate petition highlighting the alleged irregularities in medical admissions in the State based on false caste certificates.
The counsel, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the State of WB, had submitted before the court that the State was also filing a Special Leave Petition against the initial single bench order for CBI enquiry.
The counsel, Senior Advocate Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for TMC MP Abhishek Banerjee, stated that he is also aggrieved with the single judge order as he is mentioned in all the matters.
It has also been submitted by the Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta that the manner in which the Division Bench passed the stay order was objectionable as the appeal was entertained even without a proper appeal memo.
Facts of the Case;
The Division bench comprising of Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Uday Kumar in the case observed and has stayed the order of single bench while calling for a CBI probe upon noting that such a probe was not sought in the prayers of the original writ petitioners and that the State may be allowed to complete its own investigation and submit it is progress reports.
The court while ignoring the order passed by the division bench which is presided over by Justice Soumen Sen, the single bench of Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay dated January 25, 2024 had called the order illegal and void ab initio, while labelling Justice Soumen Sen an interested person in the matter.
The bench of Justice Gangopadhyay also accused Justice Sen of misconduct, and possessing political bias and noted that the division bench had no such power to consider the appeal without a server copy of the single-bench order or memo of appeal.
Further, the single bench of Justice Gangopadhyay opined that the division bench’s stayed the order was illegal and did not recognise the same.