"Attempt To Intimidate Office Of Chief Justice": Calcutta High Court Dismisses PIL Seeking To Modify Judge's Roster, Imposes 50K Cost

The Calcutta High Court has dismissed a PIL seeking to modify a judge's roster due to allegations of conflict of interest, with exemplary costs of Rs 50,000. The Court also debarred the litigant from filing a PIL ever again, by invoking the Calcutta High Court Appellate Side Rules.

Advocate Sanjoy Das, the petitioner, sought to change the determination of Justice Amrita Sinha's bench hearing matters of police inaction, by claiming that since the West Bengal CID was investigating Justice Sinha's husband for allegedly using his spouse's office to influence a probe, her determination over police matters would not inspire public confidence in the judicial system.

In dismissing the plea as an "attempt to intimidate the office of the Chief Justice", a division bench of Chief Justice TS Sivagnanam and Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharya stated:

"It has been conclusively held that the right of the CJ in finalising the determination cannot be tinkered by a petitioner, and more particularly by an advocate practising before this court. The advice to look at the legal provisions fell on deaf ears. Therefore this writ petition is a clear abuse of process, and probably an attempt to intimidate the court, and to directly interfere with the jurisdiction of the Chief Justice."

The Court further took exception to the writ petitioner's claims of being a "public-spirited" person by asking him what contributions he had made to society, without any concrete response.

While dictating the order, the bench took severe exception to the fact that the writ petitioner had pushed on with the plea despite several interventions by the court, asking him to read up on whether a PIL challenging the Chief Justice's power to decide the determination of judge could be challenged.

Thus, while holding that the writ petition was meritless, an attempt to "intimidate" and frivolous, the bench dismissed it and imposed exemplary costs.

It further invoked the appellate side rules to debar the litigant, Sanjoy Das, from ever filing PILs again.

Interestingly, the next matter on the cause list, which was filed by the same litigant, challenging a 12-hour bandh called by the BJP, was also dismissed as non-maintainable by virtue of the present order.

Case: Sanjoy Das v Registrar General, Calcutta High Court

Case No: WPA(P) 235 of 2024