Logo

Logo

SC elevates Cal HC judge caught in CM’s crosshairs

Banerjee’s counsel had also written to the Acting Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court, saying the chief minister “had objected to the confirmation of the Hon’ble Judge(Kaushik Chanda) as a Permanent Judge of the Hon’ble High Court at Calcutta”, and as such, apprehends that there is a likelihood of bias on the part of the judge concerned.

SC elevates Cal HC judge caught in CM’s crosshairs

(L-R) WB CM Mamata Banerjee, Justice Kaushik Chanda/ representational image

Kaushik Chanda, an Additional Judge of the Calcutta High Court whom the Supreme Court Collegium has appointed as a Permanent Judge, was in Bengal chief minister Mamata Banerjee’s line of fire over his alleged proximity to the BJP and the TMC leader had even opposed his confirmation.

Justice Chanda had on July 7 recused himself from hearing a petition by the Trinamul Congress chief Mamata Banerjee challenging the election of Leader of the Opposition in the Bengal Assembly Suvendu Adhikari from Nandigram after she expressed apprehension of bias against her by the judge.

The Collegium headed by Chief Justice N V Ramana met on 17 August and approved the proposal. The statement was uploaded on the apex court’s website. Besides Ramana, Justices U U Lalit and A M Khanwilkar are part of the three-member Collegium which takes decisions with regard to the appointment of high court judges.

Advertisement

Seeking reassignment of her election petition to another bench, Banerjee’s counsel had also written to the Acting Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court, saying the chief minister “had objected to the confirmation of the Hon’ble Judge as a Permanent Judge of the Hon’ble High Court at Calcutta”, and as such, apprehends that there is a likelihood of bias on the part of the judge concerned.

While recusing himself from the case, Justice Chanda had imposed a cost of Rs five lakh on Banerjee for the manner in which she had sought his recusal. He had noted in the order that Banerjee sought his recusal “since she apprehends that her objection against my confirmation as a Permanent Judge of this court is known to me”, and maintained that in his view, such a ground cannot justify recusal.

The petitioner cannot seek recusal based upon her own consent or objection with regard to the appointment of a judge, the bench said, adding that a judge cannot be said to be biased because of a litigant’s own perception and action.

“If such an argument is accepted, the election petition cannot be tried before this court since the petitioner, in her capacity as the Chief Minister of the State, has either objected or gave consent to the appointments of most of the Hon’ble Judges of this Court,” Justice Chanda had said.

Congress leader and Supreme Court advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing the TMC supremo, had submitted that “the Hon’ble Judge of this Hon’ble Court should be like Caesar’s wife, above suspicion”.

Advertisement