Calcutta High Court pulls up lawyer, asks if juniors threatened Registry into listing appeal sans order copy

The Calcutta High Court on Wednesday reprimanded a lawyer after noting that his juniors may have threatened the Court's registry into listing an appeal without a copy of the order under challenge [Srabanti Sinha Roy and anr. v. State of West Bengal].

A Bench of Chief Justice TS Sivagnanam and Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya recounted that it had earlier allowed the counsel to file the appeal with a server copy (online copy uploaded on a court website) instead of a certified (physical) copy of the order under challenge.

The Court, therefore, was irked to find that the appeal had been filed without any copy of the order. Instead, an undertaking was given "to file the server copy" by the time the matter is taken up for hearing.

The lawyer explained that the server copy was only made available online on Tuesday evening (after the appeal was filed).

"You did not point out server copy was not available ... Leave was granted to file the appeal without certified copy. How could you file this appeal without the server copy?" Justice Bhattacharyya asked on Wednesday.

"I think some of your juniors have gone and threatened the department and convinced them to accept your undertaking in the memo, saying that 'I undertake that I will produce the server copy of the impugned order at the time of hearing.' This was not the order. This is very wrong, sir. The department functions for the advocates. They are a limb of the High Court. If you go and threaten them, then what they will do?" Chief Justice Sivagnanam added.

In response, the counsel Billwadal Bhattacharya offered an unconditional apology to the Court while urging the Court to list the appeal for further hearing.

He added that there was an urgency in hearing the matter since the interim protection granted to his client in case of "political persecution" was due to expire next week.

The State's counsel countered that the appeal was not maintainable at all.

The Chief Justice replied by lamenting about the routine invocation of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) (inherent powers) to approach the High Court to quash criminal cases, instead of availing ordinary remedies before trial courts.

"I don't know, a new jurisprudence is being created before this Court. In Section 482, there is a provision to quash. Today also, another writ petition has been filed to quash the FIR. Where are we heading to? ... You move the jurisdictional court, you move for anticipatory bail, how a writ petition is filed? You are not appearing before the lower courts, and you are only appearing before High Court?" he said.

The Court, eventually agreed to list the matter on November 19 (Tuesday) for admission. The Court made it clear that the appeal would be listed only if it is accompanied by a copy of the single-judge order under challenge.

"Leave was granted to file the appeal without the certified copy with a specific understanding that server copy should be enclosed. However, the learned advocate for the appellant has made an endorsement in the memo of appeal stating that he 'undertakes to file the server copy at the time of hearing.' This was not the liberty granted by this Court at the time of mentioning. Therefore, the matter stands adjourned. Liberty granted to the appellant to file the server copy in the department and thereafter after the appeal will be listed for admission," the Court ordered.