scorecardresearch
Friday, March 29, 2024
Support Our Journalism
HomeJudiciaryMaster of roster row at Calcutta HC, judge raises 'serious doubts' about...

Master of roster row at Calcutta HC, judge raises ‘serious doubts’ about transparency 

Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya says the power of assignment of matters 'cannot be exercised at the whims of the RG (Registrar General) or even the Acting Chief Justice'.

Follow Us :
Text Size:

New Delhi: A Calcutta High Court judge Monday raised “serious doubts about the transparency of the system of dispensation of justice” in the court, while taking strong objection to Acting Chief Justice Rajesh Bindal delisting a case from him and listing it before a division bench.

Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya asserted that the power of assignment of matters that the master of roster wields, “cannot be exercised at the whims of the RG (Registrar General) or even the Acting Chief Justice”. The objection raised by the judge is the second such since May in the Calcutta High Court.

In an order passed Monday, Justice Bhattacharyya wrote, “I have serious doubts about the transparency of the system of dispensation of justice in our court in view of the above chain of events.

“Hence, I feel it my duty to inform all the beneficiaries and victims of such translucence in the system, since not only the litigants and the members of the Bar are stakeholders in the matter, but also my esteemed colleagues on the Bench and other staff of this court,” he added.

The controversy on Justice Bhattacharyya’s case revolves around an order passed by him on 16 July, when he had asked why contempt of court proceedings should not be initiated against the high court administration, including the Registrar General and the Central Project Coordinator, due to continuous interference in virtual hearings.

He had said that due to major disruptions in virtual services, he is being forced to play “dumb charades” during virtual hearings with the advocates.

This order had specifically noted that the case would be taken up the next working day. However, he now said that he was “taken by surprise” when he was informed that the case is instead before a different division bench now.

“The ‘Master of Roster’ concept cannot be equated with the ‘Master of all I survey’, even as per the Supreme Court’s interpretation,” he wrote in Monday’s order.


Also read: A judge cannot be swayed by popular opinion, cannot afford to lose objectivity: CJI Ramana


‘Most indecent’

In the order, Justice Bhattacharyya explained that after he passed an order in the case on 16 July, his regular Assistant Court Officer (ACO) informed him that the Registrar General had called for the records of the case.

The judge was then informed that the case was allocated to a division bench on the instructions of the acting chief justice.

Justice Bhattacharyya wrote in his order, “Since this Bench had determination on the relevant date, that is, July 16, 2021 as well as today, I felt it most indecent that, without showing the minimum courtesy of contacting me directly, the matter was sought to be assigned before some other Bench,” he wrote.

While he said he would send the record of the case to the division bench “following the basic tenets of transparency and judicial decorum”, the judge added, “I sincerely hope that the uploading of this order will, at least, not be prevented by the powers-that-be, so that the contents of the order may appear in public domain.”

Past controversies around listing of cases

In May, Justice Arindam Sinha had also written a letter, taking strong exception to the acting chief justice’s intervention in the Narada sting case in transferring the case to the HC and staying the bail granted to four Trinamool Congress leaders by a CBI court.

Justice Sinha’s letter dated 24 May had cited several high court rules, which, according to him, were not followed when the acting chief justice had intervened in the Narada sting case.

Justice Sinha had then written, “The High Court must get its act together. Our conduct is unbecoming of the majesty the High Court commands. We have been reduced to a mockery.”

“As such, I am requesting all of us to salvage the situation by taking such steps, including convening a Full Court, if necessary, for the purpose of re-affirming the sanctity of our Rules and our unwritten code of conduct,” he further stated.

On 17 May, Trinamool’s Subrata Mukherjee, Firhad Hakim, MLA Madan Mitra, and former Kolkata Mayor Sovan Chatterjee were arrested by the CBI but were granted bail on the same day by a designated CBI court. However, the CBI petitioned the Calcutta HC urging the judges to transfer the trial from a special CBI court to the high court.

The high court heard the matter after court hours. A bench of Justices Bindal and Arijit Banerjee had on 17 May then put on hold the trial court’s bail order in the matter. It, however, ordered house arrest of the four leaders.

On 19 May, the bench delivered a split verdict on the CBI’s plea to cancel the leaders’ bail — Justice Bindal held the four should remain in judicial custody, while Justice Banerjee ordered their bail. The matter was then referred to a larger bench in view of the divergent opinions between the two judges.

Judicial proprieties

Justice Sinha had asserted that according to the high court rules, a single judge should have heard the matter, and also questioned the manner in which the two judges stayed the trial court’s bail order.

He wrote, “Whether the High Court exercising power in the matter of transfer of criminal cases at this stage on its own initiative could have passed the order of stay is the second question.”

He further questioned why a five-judge bench was constituted when normally a third judge is added in case of a split verdict in a division bench.

Hours after the letter became public, the five-judge bench of the high court released the TMC leaders on bail.

(Edited by Paramita Ghosh)


Also read: ‘Well-designed conspiracy’ by rebel MP Raju, Naidu, 2 TV channels to overthrow govt: AP tells SC


 

Subscribe to our channels on YouTube, Telegram & WhatsApp

Support Our Journalism

India needs fair, non-hyphenated and questioning journalism, packed with on-ground reporting. ThePrint – with exceptional reporters, columnists and editors – is doing just that.

Sustaining this needs support from wonderful readers like you.

Whether you live in India or overseas, you can take a paid subscription by clicking here.

Support Our Journalism

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Most Popular