In the suo moto matter of contradictory Orders of Justices Gangopadhyay and Sen of the Calcutta High Court, where the former has also levied serious allegations against the latter, the Supreme Court has stayed both the Orders. The court also heard Solicitor General Tushar Mehta on failure to follow proper procedure. The matter will now be taken up on Monday.
—
IN an emergency hearing held this morning, a five-judge Bench of the Supreme Court stayed the proceedings before the Calcutta High Court’s Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay and a division Bench headed by Justice Soumen Sen in connection with the alleged caste certificate scam.
The Bench, comprising the Chief Justice of India (CJI) D.Y. Chandrachud and Justices Sanjiv Khanna, B.R. Gavai, Surya Kant, and Aniruddha Bose also stayed the direction issued by Justice Gangopadhyay to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to investigate the caste certificate scam.
Justice Kant joined the proceedings through the virtual mode from Chandigarh.
The Bench issued notice to the West Bengal government as well as the petitioner on whose petition Justice Gangopadhyay had passed a slew of directions for investigating the alleged scam. The Bench will continue to hear the suo motu case on Monday.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, for the state government, submitted that it would be filing an appeal against Justice Gangopadhyay’s Order in the Supreme Court. Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, for the General Secretary of the All India Trinamool Congress (TMC) and nephew of West Bengal Chief Minister and Supremo of the party Mamata Banerjee, Abhishek Banerjee, sought permission to file a writ petition in the Supreme Court.
He submitted that Justice Gangopadhyay has been making a reference to his client in every Order, even when most of them are not connected to Banerjee.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, for the Union government, submitted that he was not supporting or opposing either of the Orders. He added that he wanted to flag the procedure adopted, that is, mentioning of an appeal before the division Bench without actually filing a memo of appeal.
He referred to case law to submit that the Supreme Court had prohibited such a practice.
The Bench did not disclose its mind nor express any prima facie views on the matter except staying all the proceedings before the high court.
What happened at the Calcutta High Court? Read the full story here.
