A dramatic takedown in the Calcutta High Court brought the higher judiciary under a cloud last week and forced Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud to suo motu set up a five-member Constitution bench to stem the rot. Judicial impropriety was written all over it as a single-judge bench of the high court not only overruled a decision of a two-member bench, but also indulged in name-calling. That the matter under consideration involved accusations of graft against the ruling party in West Bengal made the case all the more spicy. It all began with Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay ordering a CBI probe into an alleged medical seat scam using fake ST certificates in West Bengal. Hours later, a two-member bench headed by Justice Soumen Sen stayed the order saying all cases need not go to the CBI. Shortly thereafter, Justice Gangopadhyay not only took the extraordinary step of ignoring the stay and restoring his CBI probe order, but also accused Justice Sen of political tilt towards the ruling Trinamool Congress.
Justice Gangopadhyay made the procedural point that the division bench had no power to consider the appeal without a copy of the single bench’s order or a memo of appeal. As for the division bench, it noted that the CBI probe was not even part of the request of the petitioners. It also faulted the Gangopadhyay bench for taking the call without seeking a progress report from the state’s probe agency. The final twist was the CBI filing an FIR going by Justice Gangopadhyay’s directions. The exasperated SC stayed all high court proceedings and orders and transferred the case to itself.
This is not the first time Justice Gangopadhyay is under the SC’s glare. Last year, he was reprimanded for giving an interview to a local news channel regarding a cash-for-jobs scam in West Bengal. The court said a sitting judge had no business giving TV interviews and directed the reassignment of all pending proceedings in the recruitment scam from his bench. Judicial discipline demands that a small bench defer to the decision of a larger bench, however unacceptable the order might be. That is the settled procedure laid out in various SC verdicts. It is for the litigant to escalate the matter, and not for a smaller bench to poke its nose into it. Else, such judicial transgressions could end up damaging the institution that is a vital pillar of democracy.