A lawyer representing Mamata Banerjee in Calcutta High Court in her election case on Thursday urged Justice Kausik Chanda to recuse himself from the hearing as his relationship with the BJP was “comprehensive and inextricably intertwined pecuniary, personal, professional, ideological and a long-standing continuous one”.
The chief minister has challenged the result of the Nandigram Assembly election in which she lost to BJP candidate Suvendu Adhikari, and the matter is being heard by Justice Chanda.
“The relationship of the Hon’ble Justice Kausik Chanda with the BJP is not merely of a judicial kind, i.e., of having decided or expressed a view in an identical manner beforehand, but a comprehensive and inextricably intertwined pecuniary, personal, professional, ideological and a long-standing continuous one,” said Mamata’s counsel Abhishek Manu Singhvi during the hearing of the case in which she herself was present virtually.
“A Hon’ble Judge of this Hon’ble Court should be like Caesar’s wife — above suspicion,” Singhvi added, saying that Justice Chanda should recuse himself from the hearing.
The hearing on the matter continued for 70 minutes and the judge, who would decide whether he would release the case or dispose of the issue, adjourned the order.
Last week, Mamata’s counsel Sanjay Basu had written a letter to acting Chief Justice Rajesh Bindal, seeking reassignment of the hearing from Justice Chanda. Justice Bindal is yet to take a decision on Basu’s letter.
When hearing on the election petition began on Thursday, Singhvi asked Justice Chanda that since the application for reassignment of the case was pending before the acting chief justice, whether he should wait for an administrative order or proceed judicially.
“Your petitioner wrote a letter to acting Chief Justice Rajesh Bindal to assign another judge for hearing the case. The acting chief justice has not taken any decision on the basis of that letter yet. So this court has no legal bar to hear the matter,” Justice Chanda said.
Singhvi replied that it was the judge’s prerogative to decide the matter “judicially”.
Then he went on to submit several points — such as Justice Chanda’s stint as the head of the legal cell of the BJP till his appointment as the solicitor-general of India, his appearance on behalf of the BJP in several litigation, and his close relationship with BJP leaders like Dilip Ghosh and Tathagata Roy — to suggest a “conflict of interest” and urged him to release the matter.
“The fact that Suvendu Adhikari is a member of the BJP and the Hon’ble Judge was an active member of the BJP will lead to a situation and perception whereby the Hon’ble Judge, in adjudicating the said election petition, may be said to be judge in his own cause,” said Singhvi.
He added: “No man can be a judge in his own cause and justice should not only be done, but manifestly be seen to be done. Scales should not only be held even but it must not be seen to be inclined.”
Singhvi said that as Justice Chanda was yet to get the status of a permanent judge of the court, his client felt that she might not get fair justice from this court.
During the course of the hearing, Justice Chanda said that it was not uncommon for lawyers to have political affiliations. “You are associated with the Congress and fighting the case on behalf of the Trinamul Congress. That does not mean that your client will not get proper justice from you…. Then, how could this affect the judiciary? What makes your client feel that she would not get justice from this court?” asked Justice Chanda.
“Judgeship is a divine role of doing justice. It is different from being a lawyer,” Singhvi said.
“There should be no doubt in the mind of a litigant about the judge who is hearing his or her case. My client has her doubts on whether she would get proper justice from this court. So the judge should release the matter,” he added.
Justice Chanda said a media trial was going on over the issue. “If I recuse, will it be giving into media trial?” asked Justice Chanda.
