The Supreme Court on January 29 passed an order transferring the proceedings pertaining to an alleged medical college admission scam in West Bengal from the Calcutta High Court to itself.
These proceedings led to a confrontation between the judges of the Calcutta High Court over directions asking the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to take over the investigation into the alleged scam.
During the course of the hearing, Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud asked the lawyers to refrain from making any comment on a sitting judge of the Calcutta High Court. The CJI further noted that it is the prerogative of the Chief Justice of Calcutta High Court on what kind of work is to allocated to a judge.
On January 27, the SC stayed the proceedings at the Calcutta High Court relating to the alleged medical college admission scam. The five-judge bench of the apex court led by CJI 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.
A single-judge bench of the Calcutta HC had on January 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 admission 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 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' 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 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.
Discover the latest Business News, Sensex, and Nifty updates. Obtain Personal Finance insights, tax queries, and expert opinions on Moneycontrol or download the Moneycontrol App to stay updated!
