Justice Kaushik Chanda of Calcutta High Court on Wednesday withdrew on “personal ground” from hearing Mamata Banerjee’s petition challenging her defeat in the Nandigram Assembly segment, but imposed a fine of Rs 5 lakh on her for maligning the judiciary by questioning the judge’s partiality.

Justice Chanda said the fine would have to be handed over to the state Bar council for treatment of lawyers and their family members affected by Covid-19.

The Trinamul Congress has decided to challenge the fine before the Supreme Court.

The case has been sent to acting Chief Justice Rajesh Bindal for reassignment to another judge of the court.

In her election petition, the chief minister had alleged malpractices in the counting at Nandigram, where Trinamul turncoat and BJP nominee Suvendu Adhikari had defeated her by 1,965 votes.

The petitioner claimed that the Election Commission of India official who was in charge of the counting at Nandigram had initially declared her as the winner on May 2, but the result was reversed in Adhikari’s favour later the same day. Trinamul’s demand for a recount was turned down by the returning officer.

Mamata went to the high court challenging the election process 44 days after the announcement of the results.

When the case was sent to Justice Chanda, the chief minister’s lawyer, Sanjay Basu, said he had links with the BJP before he became a judge and wrote to the secretary to the acting Chief Justice, seeking reassignment.

Basu mentioned in his letter “reasonable apprehension” over the “likelihood of bias” and said Justice Chanda was an “active member of the BJP”.

But Justice Chanda demanded that lawyers appearing for Mamata satisfy him on what ground she had challenged his political identity. After five days of hearing, Justice Chanda reserved the verdict.

In the verdict delivered on Wednesday, Justice Chanda expressed views in support of his decision of imposing the fine on Mamata and gave an argument on his own behalf.

Mamata’s counsel Abhishek Manu Singhvi had raised three main reasons for seeking reassignment of the case. First, the judge was a BJP activist and had shared the dais with senior party leaders while practising as a lawyer.

Second, when Justice Chanda’s name was sent to the chief minister for her opinion before appointing him as a permanent judge of the court, Mamata did not give her approval because he was a BJP follower and had been appointed additional solicitor-general by the BJP-led Centre.

Finally, the judge has good connections with some senior BJP leaders, Singhvi had said.

In his judgment, Justice Chanda countered Mamata’s arguments.

Each and every person is a follower of any of the parties and that does not mean he will favour his party when dealing with a case as a judge. A judge never thinks about his earlier life of political affinities while disposing of a case. So, the impartiality of a judge cannot be challenged, the judge said.

Justice Chanda has added that sending names to state heads before appointing an additional judge as a permanent judge is merely a protocol. Appointments do not depend on their opinion. But by bringing the issue in public, the chief minister violated privacy norms.

Justice Chanda also said a judge was a human being and might have connections with others. But that did not mean he would help the people in a case, he said.

Before holding that the petitioner had “tarnished” the image of the judiciary and imposed the fine on her, Justice Chanda said the judiciary was like a temple, where judges were to provide justice to genuine persons.

A senior Trinamul MP said the party had decided to move the Supreme Court challenging the fine and its accompanying charges.