Kaushik Chanda, a further Judge of Calcutta supreme court whom the Supreme Court Collegium has appointed as a Permanent Judge, was in province Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee’s line of fireside over his alleged proximity to BJP and also the Trinamool Congress leader had opposed his confirmation.
Justice Chanda on July 7 recused himself from hearing a petition by the Trinamool Congress chief challenging the election of Leader of the Opposition within the state Assembly Suvendu Adhikari from Nandigram after she expressed apprehension of bias against her by the judge.
The Collegium headed by jurist N V Ramana met on August 17 and approved the proposal. The statement was uploaded on the Supreme Court’s website on Thursday.
Seeking reassignment of her election petition to a different bench, Ms Banerjee’s counsel had also written to the Acting justice of the Calcutta tribunal, saying the chief minister “had objected to the confirmation of the Hon’ble Judge as a Permanent Judge of the Hon’ble supreme court at Calcutta”, and per se, apprehends that there’s a likelihood of bias on the a part of the judge concerned.
He had noted within the order that Ms Banerjee sought his recusal “since she apprehends that her objection against my confirmation as a Permanent Judge of this court is understood to me”, and maintained that in his view, such a ground cannot justify recusal.
The petitioner cannot seek recusal based upon her own consent or objection with relevance the appointment of a judge, the bench said, adding that a judge can’t be said to be biased due to a litigant’s own perception and action.
“If such an argument is accepted, the election petition can’t be tried before this court since the petitioner, in her capacity because the Chief Minister of the State, has either objected or gave consent to the appointments of most of the Hon’ble Judges of this Court,” Justice Chanda had said.
In his order, Justice Chanda had noted that a letter by the petitioner’s counsel to the Acting justice of the Calcutta tribunal on June 16 seeking that the election petition be reassigned to a different judge “contained highly counsel concerning the appointment of a Judge of the court, and therefore the petitioner, being the Chief Minister of the State, who took the oath of secrecy, was constitutionally obliged to keep up the secrecy of such information”.
Releasing the election petition of Ms Banerjee on an application by her for recusal expressing apprehension of bias, Justice Chanda said that he was doing so so as to thwart at the outset attempts by trouble-mongers to stay the controversy alive.
He had noted that like all other citizen of the country, a judge also exercises his voting rights in favour of a organization, but he lays aside his individual predilection while deciding a case. He had said that it’s preposterous to suggest that a judge having a past association with a organization as a lawyer shouldn’t receive a case involving the said party or any of its members.
“The past association of a judge with a organization by itself cannot form apprehension of bias,” the bench said.
“This proposition, if allowed to be accepted, would be destructive to the long-lived and deep-rooted notion of neutrality related to the justice delivery system and result in the unfair practice of Bench hunting to resist a good adjudication by an unscrupulous litigant,” Justice Chanda observed.
Noting that “the script was already prepared; the cast were able to launch a well-rehearsed drama outside the Court”, Justice Chanda said, “On the own showing of the petitioner within the recusal application, it appears that the chief national spokesperson and leader of the petitioner’s party within the Rajya Sabha was ready by that point with two photographs of mine attending a programme of BJP legal cell within the year 2016.”
Justice Chanda said that another member of Parliament of the said party also by that point, apparently, “was ready with a purported list of cases where I had appeared for the Bharatiya Janata Party as a lawyer.”
Ms Banerjee’s lawyers had suggested that Justice Chanda should recuse himself from the case since he was related to the legal cell of the BJP before his elevation as a judge and had appeared during a number of cases on its behalf before the tribunal as a lawyer.
Congress leader and Supreme Court advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing the TMC supremo, had submitted that “the Hon’ble Judge of this Hon’ble Court should be like Caesar’s wife, above suspicion”.
