SC stays proceedings that led to confrontation between two Calcutta HC judges

SC stays Calcutta HC proceedings

In a special Saturday sitting on January 27, the Supreme Court stayed proceedings at the Calcutta High Court relating to the alleged medical college admission scam.

The five-judge bench of the apex court led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud further stayed the order of the single judge of Calcutta High Court ordering a CBI probe into the alleged scam. The bench has issued notice to the State of West Bengal and the original petitioner in the case.

The proceedings relating to this case created quite a stir in the Calcutta High Court after two judges warred over orders passed by each other.

During the course of the hearing, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told the court that the two-judge bench of the High Court proceeded to hear an appeal without adequate pleadings filed, in direct violation of a Supreme Court judgment. The court however did not comment on the merits of the case and informed the lawyers that it would come up for hearing again on January 29.

Background to the dispute:

A single bench of the Calcutta HC had on Januar 24 directed a CBI investigation into the alleged scam saying it had no faith in the state police on a plea filed by MBBS candidate Itisha Soren alleging irregularities in the admissions of candidates in medical colleges and hospitals under the reservation category. Later, the West Bengal government moved the division bench of the high court, which then ordered an interim stay on the single-bench order.

Subsequently, Justice Gangopadhyay took the matter and asked the Advocate General how without the impugned order an order of stay could be passed by a Division Bench and how an order be passed when there was no memo of appeal. "I have no other option but to ignore the order of the said Division Bench as the order has been passed in continuation of the illegal appeal void ab initio. I have ignored the said illegal order passed by the said Division Bench for the reasons as has been stated above including the ground of 'interested person' Hon’ble Justice Soumen Sen… "

"Thus, Justice Sen is acting clearly for some political party in this State and, therefore, the orders passed in the matters involving State, are required to be relooked if the Hon’ble Supreme Court thinks so," Justice Gangopadhyay said.

The apex court on January 26 took suo moto cognisance over the issue and constituted a five-judge bench to hear the case.