The Supreme Court on Friday agreed to examine Trinamul Congress national general secretary Abhishek Banerjee’s plea for transfer of a case related to cash-for-job allegations to a special bench of Calcutta High Court from the single-judge bench of Justice Amrita Sinha.
A bench headed by the Chief Justice of India, D.Y. Chandrachud, however, refused to issue any order or direction to Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay restraining the judge from giving media interviews, which Banerjee claimed were “politically motivated” causing grave prejudice to his image.
The bench, which included Justices Manoj Misra and Satish Chandra Sharma, tagged the petition filed by Banerjee for transfer of the case from Justice Sinha’s bench for consideration before the five-judge constitution bench of the Supreme Court that had on January 27 stayed the unprecedented orders passed by two benches of the high court.
The five-judge bench had stayed the orders of Justice Gangopadhyay for a CBI probe into alleged irregularities in medical college admissions in Bengal last year, a subsequent order of a division bench headed by Justice Soumen Sen overruling the single-judge bench's order and counter-orders passed by the single judge.
The constitution bench of Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and Justices Sanjiv Khanna, B.R. Gavai, Surya Kant and Aniruddha Bose had listed the matter for further hearing on February 19.
The bench will take up for hearing that day Banerjee’s petition and the controversial orders on medical college admissions.
The apex court declined to entertain senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi’s plea for “action” against Justice Gangopadhyay for giving "politically motivated" interviews.
Singhvi, appearing for Banerjee, complained that so far the judge had given five media interviews in which he made several observations against the Trinamul leader.
Singhvi complained that despite the apex court’s earlier observation that judges should not give interviews in pending matters, the judge continued to give interviews and hence, he wanted a notice to be issued.
The CJI expressed his disinclination to issue any such directive against a sitting judge. “Dr Singhvi, you are seeking a writ of mandamus to take action against a judge for 'politically motivated' interviews. We shouldn't be issuing notice on this,” the CJI remarked.
Singhvi then relented, saying: “I am not pressing that now (for action against the judge). I am pressing the prayer for transfer of proceedings before Justice Amrita Sinha to a special judge."
The bench asked: “If you are aggrieved by the conduct of Justice Gangopadhyay, why should we be transferring something from Justice Amrita Sinha's bench?”
Singhvi was of the view that the cash-for-jobs case be transferred to a special bench of the high court in which none of the judges involved in the recent controversy is part of the hearing.
The CJI then said that as the five-judge constitution bench had earlier taken suo motu cognisance of the earlier incidents, Banerjee's petition for transfer of the case to a special bench would be considered on February 19.
On January 27, at a special sitting on a Saturday, the five-judge constitution bench stayed the orders passed by both Justice Gangopadhyay and the division bench headed by Justice Sen and issued notices to the CBI, the state government and medical seat aspirant Ishita Soren, on whose petition the high court had passed the impugned orders, for their replies.
The controversy over the MBBS admissions started when, on the directions of Justice Gangopadhyay, the CBI commenced investigations against 27 candidates who were accused by the petitioner of having secured berths in the medical course in the reserved category by producing fake caste papers.
The Bankura resident had moved the single-judge bench alleging that she had failed to get a slot in the medical course despite scoring the required marks in the NEET.
The division bench quashed the FIR registered by the CBI on the earlier orders passed by the single judge.
The next day, Justice Gangopadhyay declined to accept the orders passed by the division bench and directed the CBI to proceed with the probe which he had ordered the previous day.
He also directed the high court registry to send a copy of the order to the Chief Justice of India and the Chief Justice of Calcutta High Court.