Justice Kaushik Chanda of Calcutta HC imposes Rs. 5 Lakh costs upon Mamata Banerjee; recuses from hearing her election petition

Mamata Banerjee had mentioned Justice Kaushik Chanda's past association with the BJP in a letter to the Chief Justice of Calcutta High Court on June 16. According to her letter, there was a "reasonable apprehension of bias... in favour of the respondent (Suvendu Adhikari)...", who belongs to the BJP, hence she wanted the case to be reassigned to a different court.

Before recusing from the case involving Mamata Banerjee's plea challenging the election of the BJP's Suvendu Adhikari, Justice Chanda made several angry remarks, accusing Mamata Banerjee of a "preplanned attempt to malign a judge" and of violating her constitutional duty.

"Such calculative, psychological and offensive attempt to seek recusal need to be firmly repulsed and a cost of ₹ 5 lakh is imposed upon Petitioner," Justice Chanda said.

According to Justice Chanda, judges vote and have political viewpoints but Mamata Banerjee is wrong to think that judges cannot perform their duties simply because they vote for one or another party.

Rebutting Mamata's argument that she apprehended bias because she had objected to Justice Kaushik's confirmation as a permanent judge at Calcutta HC in April, Justice Chanda said that by that parameter no judge of the Calcutta HC would be in a position to hear her petition as the Chief Minister "must have either objected to or confirmed the appointment".

"The trial of the case before this bench will be a tool to aggrandise themselves. It would be contrary to the interest of justice if such unwarranted squabble continues along with the trial of the case, and such attempts should be thwarted at the threshold. The hearing of the case should proceed seamlessly, like any other litigation before this court.", the court said.

CLICK HERE TO READ ORDER.

Comments

Patna High Court Declares Bihar’s Reservation Amendments Ultra Vires

In a landmark decision, the Patna High Court has invalidated the Bihar government's legislative attempt to increase reservations for backward classes. The court's ruling focused on procedural flaws and the absence of a robust empirical basis for the hike, sparking a debate on judicial intervention in affirmative action policies. Background and Rationale Behind Setting Aside Bihar Reservation Increase Law The Bihar government had proposed an increase in reservations to address socio-economic disparities faced by backward classes. However, the court found that the state failed to follow due process, which includes conducting a thorough empirical study to justify the policy change. This procedural oversight led to the court's decision to strike down the increase. The High Court emphasized the necessity of a data-driven approach for policy changes related to reservations. The ruling underscored that without solid empirical evidence, such policies could not be justified within...

Pune Porsche Crash: Father of Minor Granted Bail

Image Credit: tv9marathi A Pune court has granted bail to the minor’s father, Vishal Agarwal, who faced charges under the Juvenile Justice Act for neglect and endangering the child by allowing him to drive without a license and consume alcohol. Additionally, bar owners and managers were arrested for serving alcohol to minors. The father, already in custody for other related charges, was implicated in the alleged manipulation of his son’s blood samples and in a separate case of kidnapping his driver. Advocate Prashant Patil argued that Vishal Agarwal's arrest was unlawful, contending that the charges were non-cognizable offenses and required a notice under the Criminal Procedure Code. Mr. Patil also highlighted contradictions in police reports, where the minor was listed as the accused in one FIR and as a victim in another. Also Read: Delhi High Court Stays Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal's Bail in Excise Policy Case Earlier Proceedings in the Pune Porsche Crash Inc...

Counsel's failure to argue written submissions is not a ground of review: Bombay High Court

By - Sameeksha Negi* The Bombay High Court has observed that “If Counsel has not urged a point, the fact that there were written submissions is immaterial if those written submissions were never in fact argued.” The Bench also added that “Counsel’s failure to argue written submissions is not a ground of review or, I dare say, even appeal. It is no ground to assail any order of any judge of any court.” The bench was hearing a review petition filed for seeking reinstatement of original arbitration petition on grounds some of which were never argued and others never pleaded and the said petition was filed after the original arbitration petition was fully argued, and then decided by pronouncement in open court. Also Read - The Pension Scheme for freedom fighters cannot be construed in a manner that the requirements prescribed are rendered a dead letter: Bombay HC According to Justice GS Patel allowing parties to take grounds in review pleas or in appeals that were not argued initi...

Lawgic Simplified

Search This Blog