Calcutta HC sitting judge questions acting CJ’s interference in Narada sting case

Taking unprecedented steps, a senior judge of the Calcutta High Court has written to all judges of the High Court, including Acting Chief Justice Rajesh Bindal, questioning the intervention of the Acting Chief Justice in the Narada Sting case in transferring the case. The bail granted to HC and four TMC leaders by the CBI court was stayed. “The High Court should do its work together. Our conduct is against the order of the High Court. We are confined to a joke. Therefore, I am requesting all of us to revive the situation by taking such steps, including calling a full court, if necessary, for the purpose of reaffirming the sanctity of our rules and our unwritten code of conduct. goes. A letter accessed by The Indian Express. The letter of 24 May, a day after the CBI challenged the order of a division bench of the High Court,

Held in the Narada bribery case, it raised a number of questions over procedural gaps in accepting the CBI’s plea and handing it over to a bench headed by the acting Chief Justice. The letter questioned, “Whether the High Court exercises power in the case of transfer of a criminal case, at that stage, on its own initiative, can pass an order of adjournment, that is the second question.” On 21 May, a house arrest was ordered, while Acting Chief Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Arijit Banerjee expressed their opinion about the case and a large five-judge bench would be set up to hear the petition. While Justice Banerjee was in favor of granting bail, caretaker CJ Bindal supported the detention. In his letter, the senior judge questioned that when a third decision is usually added to the case of a split verdict in the bench, So why is a five-judge bench formed. “Chapter VII provides for reference to a full bench. Such references arise when the view taken by one division bench is inconsistent with the approach taken by another division bench, ”the letter stated. 

On 17 May, four TMC leaders were arrested by the CBI, but on the same day they were granted bail by a designated CBI court. However, the CBI filed a petition in the High Court urging the judges to transfer the case from the special CBI court to the High Court, declaring the proceedings in the agency court invalid on May 17 and conducting the proceedings afresh. . The CBI made a plea that the CBI court had given the four leaders “mobilization, pressure, He was granted bail in the cloud of intimidation and violence and is a void in the eyes of the law ”. The High Court heard the case after court hours and stayed the bail granted by the special court. “The appeal party rules require a motion seeking transfer, either on the civil or criminal side, also headed by a single judge.

 However, the First Division Bench took the matter up, considering it a writ petition, ”the judge wrote. The CBI’s communication noted that TMC made efforts in the trial court, “The congestion factor may be on the basis of merit to decide the motion, but whether the First Division Bench can take it and hear it as a writ petition Can continue. The first question, ”the letter stated. 

. Either on the civil or criminal side, also headed by a single judge. However, the First Division Bench took the matter up, considering it a writ petition, ”the judge wrote. The CBI’s communication noted that TMC made efforts in the trial court, “The congestion factor may be on the basis of merit to decide the motion, but whether the First Division Bench can take it and hear it as a writ petition Can continue. The first question, ”the letter stated. . Either on the civil or criminal side, also headed by a single judge. However, the First Division Bench took the matter up, considering it a writ petition, ”the judge wrote.

 The CBI’s communication noted that TMC made efforts in the trial court, “The congestion factor may be on the basis of merit to decide the motion, but whether the First Division Bench can take it and hear it as a writ petition Can continue. The first question, ”the letter stated. . But can the First Division Bench take it and continue to hear it as a writ petition. The first question, ”the letter stated. . But can the First Division Bench take it and continue to hear it as a writ petition. The first question, ”the letter stated. .