Following a contentious situation in the Calcutta High Court, where a judge accused a colleague of bias towards a political party in the state, the Supreme Court took action on Saturday. The apex court issued notices to the West Bengal government and the Calcutta High Court, and it also halted the directives for a CBI investigation into alleged irregularities in the admission process of MBBS candidates in the state. Additionally, all proceedings related to this matter before the Calcutta High Court were put on hold.
Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud formed a five-judge bench, consisting of himself and the four most senior judges of the court – Justices Sanjiv Khanna, B R Gavai, Surya Kant, and Aniruddha Bose – after taking suo motu cognizance of the developments on Friday.
On Thursday, Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay, presiding over a single-judge bench at the Calcutta High Court, ruled that the CBI investigation into alleged irregularities in MBBS admissions in the state should proceed, despite a conflicting directive from a division bench.
In his written order, Justice Gangopadhyay made accusations against his fellow judge, Justice Soumen Sen.
Earlier, on Wednesday, Justice Gangopadhyay had ordered a CBI probe into the alleged irregularities in the admission of MBBS candidates in state-run medical colleges and hospitals. However, the state government challenged this decision before a division bench comprising Justices Sen and Uday Kumar, resulting in an interim stay on the single-bench order. The state government verbally appealed before the division bench, which accepted the petition.
In his written order, Justice Gangopadhyay stated, “Now I have to take an action that, though unusual, I believe is necessary to uphold the integrity of the judiciary in general and this court in particular. This action is in full regard to the Honorable Justice Soumen Sen.”
The order continued, stating, “I was informed some days ago by Justice Amrita Sinha that Justice Sen summoned her to his chamber on the last day before vacation. In a manner akin to a political leader, he instructed Justice Sinha on three matters: i) Mr. Avishek Banerjee has a political career ahead and should not face any disruptions; ii) Live-streaming in Justice Sinha’s courtroom should cease; iii) The two writ petitions before Justice Sinha, involving Mr. Avishek Banerjee, are to be dismissed.”
