Supreme Court Declines Abhishek Banerjee's Plea For Action Against HC Judge Over Interviews, But Agrees To Consider Request For Transfer Of Cases

The Supreme Court on Friday (February 9) expressed disinclination to entertain Trinamool Congress MP Abhishek Banerjee's request for 'necessary action' against Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay, judge of the Calcutta High Court, for 'politically motivated' interviews.

At the same time, it agreed to consider the other relief prayed for by the Trinamool Congress national general secretary in his writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, for a transfer of the cases concerning him from the present high court bench to a special bench. With respect to this prayer, the bench of Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justices Manoj Mishra and Satish Chandra Sharma stated that Banerjee's petition will be tagged with the suo motu case initiated by the Supreme Court in which a batch of pleas concerning the medical admissions scam were transferred from the Calcutta High Court to the top court.

In his petition filed through Advocate-on-Record Srisatya Mohanty, Banerjee requested action against the judge and urged for measures to prevent prejudicial remarks that could impact ongoing investigations into the alleged primary teachers' recruitment scam. The petition comes amid a backdrop of escalating tensions between the judiciary and political figures in the state.

The reliefs he sought include: First, a direction to ensure that remarks made by the judge inside or outside the court premises against the petitioner would not influence the ongoing investigation by the central agencies; second, 'necessary action' against Justice Gangopadhyay for engaging in 'politically motivated' interviews related to pending legal matters. Such actions were deemed to contravene principles of judicial propriety and restraint, significantly prejudicing the rights and interests of the Petitioner; third, a direction to transfer the writ petition pending before the high court and related issues to a special bench that was uninfluenced by any remarks made by the said judge or his successor; fourth, directions to high courts to prevent its judges from making adverse comments regarding any sub judice case or the involved parties, and fifth, directives to postpone the reporting of sub judice matters concerning Banerjee in view of the principle of the presumption of innocence and to ensure fair and impartial judicial consideration free from media sensationalism.

During the hearing today, Chief Justice Chandrachud voiced concerns about admitting a request for action against a sitting judge of a high court for his remarks. To Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, who was appearing for the TMC leader, the chief justice said, "You are seeking a writ of mandamus to take action against a judge for 'politically motivated' interviews. We shouldn't be issuing notice on this."

The senior counsel agreed to only press for the prayer seeking a transfer of the proceedings before a single-judge bench of Justice Amrita Sinha of the Calcutta High Court. The cash-for-jobs scam case was transferred to Justice Sinha's bench from Justice Gangopadhyay's last year, in the wake of the television interview controversy. Singhvi explained, "Justice Gangopadhyay has now alleged that Justice Soumen Sen has spoken to Justice Amrita Sinha asking her to do this or do that. These proceedings also require to either be transferred or be taken up by Your Lordships."

To this, Chief Justice Chandrachud asked, "If you are aggrieved by conduct of Justice Gangopadhyay, why should we be transferring something from Justice Amrita Sinha's bench?"

Singhvi exclaimed, "As a part of the conduct, Justice Gangopadhyay has alleged that Justice Sen spoke to Justice Sinha about Abhishek Banerjee's case. She spoke to him."

While the apex court refused to entertain Banerjee's prayer seeking action against Justice Gangopadhyay for his controversial remarks, it agreed to tag his request for a transfer of the proceedings before Justice Sinha with the five-judge suo motu action initiated in light of the row between Justice Gangopadhyay's bench and a division bench comprising Justice Soumen Sen. 

Background

The controversy stems from recent judicial actions taken by Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay of the Calcutta High Court. Last month, Justice Gangopadhyay defied a stay order issued by a division bench regarding his order directing a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe into purported irregularities in medical admissions in West Bengal. The single judge's decision to override the division bench's directive sparked outrage. To make matters worse, Justice Gangopadhyay also made damning allegations against his fellow judge, Justice Soumen Sen, who was a part of the division bench along with Justice Uday Kumar, accusing him of 'misconduct' and harbouring political bias in favour of the state's ruling dispensation. In the unusual order, the judge wrote -

"...Today I have been handed over a memorandum of appeal. Now I have to do something which is though unusual but unless I do this I think I will fail in my duty to hold the sanctity of judiciary in general and this court in particular. It is fully in respect of His Lordship the Hon'ble Justice Soumen Sen. I was told some days back by Justice Amrita Sinha that Justice Soumen Sen called her in Justice Sen's chamber on the last day before vacation and like a political leader he dictated Justice Sinha three things:-

i) Mr. Avishek Banerjee has a political future, he should not be disturbed.

ii) Live-streaming shall be stopped in Justice Amrita Sinha's court.

iii) The two writ petitions before Justice Amrita Sinha, where the name of Mr. Avishek Banerjee is involved, are to be dismissed.

Justice Sinha intimated this to me over telephone in vacation. Subsequently, Justice Sinha reported it to the Hon'ble the Chief Justice of this High Court and I was told that the Hon'ble the Chief Justice of this court has communicated this to the Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India.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. Not only that, by passing an order without the impugned order and without the memorandum of appeal, the said Division Bench has given a very wrong signal that without the impugned order and without the memorandum of appeal, an appeal can be heard and order can be passed."

In response to Justice Gangopadhyay's actions, a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court intervened, transferring the case from the Calcutta High Court to itself. 

Banerjee's prayers in his latest writ petition seek not only accountability for the actions of the judge in question but also safeguards to ensure the fair and unbiased adjudication of cases involving politically sensitive matters. 

This is not the first time Banerjee has raised apprehensions of unfairness and Justice Gangopadhyay's . Early last year, the Calcutta High Court judge was criticised by the Supreme Court for giving an interview to a local Bengali news channel regarding the infamous cash-for-jobs scam in the state, in which he allegedly made imputations against the TMC leader. Banerjee objected to these statements particularly because the judge was presiding over a batch of matters relating to the scam in question. In an order that was challenged before the top court, Justice Gangopadhyay had also directed the Central Bureau of Investigation and the Enforcement Directorate to question the TMC national general secretary.

In response to Banerjee's concerns, a bench headed by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud observed that judges had no business giving television interviews and instructed Chief Justice TS Sivagnanam of the Calcutta High Court to re-assign all pending proceedings in the primary teachers' recruitment scam before Justice Gangopadhyay to another bench. 

On the same day, Justice Gangopadhyay passed a suo moto order directing the Supreme Court's secretary general to provide him with the translation of the controversial media interview that was placed before the apex court in the morning. Later in the day, while staying this order in a special 8 PM sitting, the Supreme Court noted that "the order of the present nature ought not to have been passed in a judicial proceeding, more so, keeping in view of judicial discipline."

Case Details 

Abhishek Banerjee v. Union of India & Ors. | Writ Petition (Civil) No. 84 of 2024