School jobs for cash scam: Cases in Calcutta High Court involving TMC's Abhishek Banerjee assigned to Justice Amrita Sinha

The Calcutta High Court has reassigned the bunch of petitions relating to the school jobs for cash scam involving Trinamool Congress leader Abhishek Banerjee, to Justice Amrita Sinha.

The Supreme Court had on April 28 ordered the Calcutta High Court Chief Justice to reassign the case from Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay's bench to some other bench as the judge had given an interview to ABP Ananda against Banerjee.

A notification was issued by the High Court on May 1 pursuant to the top court's order.

"The Writ Petitions, all application filed in the writ petitions and any further application/s that may be filed including Review Application/s are assigned to Justice Amrita Sinha," the notification said.

A bench comprising of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Justice PS Narasimha of the Supreme Court had passed an order on April 28 to reassign the case to some other judge in light of the fact that Justice Gangopadhyay had given an interview to news channel ABP Ananda regarding Banerjee even as the case concerning to the TMC leader was being heard by him.

In its order, the Supreme Court had said,

"Having considered the note prepared by Justice Gangopadhyay and also perused the transcript of the interview, the transcript has been authenticated on April 26, 2023 by the interpreting officer on the original side of the High Court, we direct the admin Chief Justice shall reassign the pending proceedings in the case to some other judge of the Calcutta High Court."

The judge to whom proceedings are reassigned would be at liberty to take up all applications moved in that regard, the apex court had added.

The said order was passed on a plea by Banerjee against the High Court's order calling for probe against him by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the Enforcement Directorate (ED).

The top court had previously stayed the April 13 judgment ordering a probe by the central agencies into Banerjee's alleged role in irregularities in recruitment of teaching and non-teaching staff at government schools.

During a public meeting on March 29, Banerjee had alleged that persons in ED and CBI custody were pressurized into naming him as part of the case.

Subsequently, another accused in the case, Kuntal Ghosh, had also alleged that he was being pressured by investigators to take the name of Banerjee. Ghosh was in ED custody after his arrest till February 2, and was in CBI custody from February 20 to 23.

An appeal was filed claiming that the High Court cast "unsubstantiated aspersions" on Banerjee and effectively directed the CBI and ED to initiate investigation against him, despite the fact that he was neither a party nor connected to the writ petition being heard.

Banerjee in his plea further highlighted that Justice Gangopadhyay, who passed the order, had expressed his dislike for the TMC leader in an interview given to a news channel last September.

It was also claimed that the judge had made remarks against Supreme Court judges who were hearing appeals against his order in the case. This was after the apex court had earlier called for an interim stay on the High Court order for CBI and ED probes against the accused.

During a hearing, Justice Gangopadhyay had reportedly asked in open court,

"Supreme Court judges can do whatever they want? Is this a Zamindari?"

Banerjee moved the apex court stating,

"The fact that judicial orders passed by the highest court of the land, are not only under scrutiny but criticism in the most cavalier manner by the said Ld. Single Judge, calls for intervention by this Hon’ble Court so as to ensure that the majesty of the Institution is maintained and the faith which a common man deposes in it stands strong."

Interestingly, after the Supreme Court passed the order on April 28 to reassign the case, Justice Gangopadhyay passed an order the very same day to the Supreme Court Secretary General asking him to produce the report and official transcript of the interview.

The Supreme Court was then forced to sit late in the evening to stay that order.

[Read Notification]