"Highest degree of double standard:" Single-judge of Calcutta High Court objects to sealed cover indulgence by Division Bench

In a significant development, a single-judge of the Calcutta High Court on Wednesday took strong objection to an order passed by a Division Bench allowing a party to submit a document in sealed cover and virtually 'tying' the hands of the single-judge [Md. Abdul Gani Ansari Vs. State of West Bengal]..Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay, had on 25 March, passed an order directing one SP Sinha to file an affidavit detailing the assets in a plea relating to appointment of teachers to state-run schools.Sinha was a long-time advisor of the School Service Commission and convenor of the five-member committee constituted by the Education Department.It was the single-judge’s observation in the March 25 order that there were serious illegalities in giving recommendations to ineligible candidates“Tip of the corruption-iceberg in issuing illegal recommendations which is getting gradually bigger,” the order had said.Sinha appealed against the same and a Division Bench comprising Justices Harish Tandon and Rabindranath Samanta held that the affidavit shall remain in a sealed cover and shall not be divulged or circulated to the litigating parties or their counsel.The Division Bench also said that the same shall be appropriately dealt with at the time of final decision.When the matter was heard by single-judge on Wednesday, the Division Bench's order was pointed out. Justice Gangopadhyay then took exception to that order.“I do not know what this court will do with a sealed cover in this proceeding when the hand of this appeal court has been tied by the above observation,” the single-judge said in the order passed on Wednesday.The judge termed the order “a highest degree of double standard”..Highest degree of double standard.Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay on Division Bench order.He found that the Division Bench had fixed a course of action to be followed by the single-judge. However, he stated that there was absolutely no reason for him to prevented in such a manner.“In a sense the hands of the single-bench has been tied though it has been stated by the appeal court that it does not find any element warranting interference with the said order at that stage,” Justice Gangopadhyay said.The judge wondered who would be benefited by tying the hands of the single-judge, particularly after it was made the clear in its order that the Court had found serious illegalities..On perusing the order of the Division Bench, the single-judge also took objection to other observations:"(i) My observations made in the order dated 25.03.2022 has been declared by the said appeal bench as tentative. How this declaration is made and why, is not known. There is no reason. Thus, this court's observation has been diluted. (ii) Regarding my finding as to illegal appointments it is held by the said Division Bench - I do not know why - that it was a'perceived notion', when the illegal appointments are hard facts that have come before me why such diluting word 'notion' has been used I do not know. (iii) The said appeal court has also taken into account the 'thought process' behind the direction passed upon the appellant to file affidavit of assets. I do not know how the 'thought process' of this Judge can be known? Is this a comment on adjudication or something else, I do not know.".The Court wondered what it would do with the sealed envelope. "I do not understand what a court of law will do with a sealed envelope containing therein some papers which could be affidavit of assets. Therefore, this matter is required to be adjourned for some days," the order said.The matter was, therefore, adjourned for April 5."I adjourn this matter till April 5, 2022 when it will appear under the heading 'To Be Mentioned'," the Court directed..[Read Order]