Calcutta High Court Refuses To Initiate Suo Moto Contempt Against Abhishek Banerjee For Allegedly Scandalous Remarks About Judiciary

The Calcutta High Court on Monday refused to take suo moto cognizance of allegedly incendiary remarks made by AITC MP Abhishek Banerjee against the judiciary.

A bench of Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam and Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharya suggested Senior Advocate Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharya, who had made an urgent mentioning, to approach the larger bench which is already hearing a contempt case in relation to agitation and circulation of defamatory posters against Justice Rajasekhar Mantha.

Bhattacharya implored the Court to initiate immediate suo moto contempt action in order to protect its dignity and majesty, which was being “dragged into the dirt”.

He submitted, “One person (accused contemnor) who engaged in “postering” against a particular judge (Justice Rajasekhar Mantha) is now on record, claiming that High Court is giving protection to antisocial elements. He has also said that all [Poll violence] killings are because of High Court…his utterances are affecting the majesty of this court. I wouldn’t have moved this, but a professor of national eminence and former Advocate General called me and requested to bring this to light. Mafia leaders cannot shake the confidence of common people against the High Court. Milord, these are unscathing, scandalous remarks against the High Court. This will shake the conscience of the court.”

Senior counsel Sakya Sen also supported Bhattacharya’s submissions, stating that Banerjee was on an earlier ocassion also cautioned against making coloured remarks against the judiciary. He submitted,

This person was cautioned before by a division bench, same person…similar kind of remark. Just, last time was a general remark, this time the entire High Court [has been insulted]…and he is aware of the consequences. He has dared the Court to issue contempt, says the Court can issue contempt, he will face it.”

The Bench however asked the counsel why the informants could not file a conventional contempt application.

Bhattacharya submitted that in such a case consent of Advocate General would be required.

The bench then Court orally remarked:

“Ultimately if criminal contempt has to be initiated then necessary directions have to be issued to the AG...Place this along with the other contempt matters which are pending, in the form of a petition, placing on record the facts which you want to [plead].”