A view of the SC.
Credit: PTI Photo
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday said it cannot consider TMC MP Abhishek Banerjee’s plea for a direction for suitable action against Calcutta High Court judge Abhijit Gangopadhyay for his “continuous politically motivated interviews”.
A bench of Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud and Justices Manoj Misra and Satish Chandra Sharma, however, said his other prayers could be considered in a pending suo motu matter before a five-judge bench over Justice Gangopadhyay overturning a division bench's order as illegal.
Senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi, appearing for Banerjee, contended that Justice Gangopadhyay, who has been continuously giving “politically motivated interviews”, should be restrained.
He said the remarks of the single judge “within or outside the court premises against the applicant/petitioner (Banerjee) should not influence the investigation carried out by the respondents (CBI and ED)”.
In his plea, Banerjee claimed his fundamental rights are being repeatedly trampled by the personal tirade carried out by Justice Gangopadhyay, during unrelated judicial proceedings and staged media interviews.
He said his client is aggrieved by the prejudicial remarks of Justice Gangopadhyay in the interview and the order passed on January 25, 2024, and also with the alleged incident with respect to Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Amrita Sinha recorded in the order dated January 25.
The petitioner has serious apprehension that in view of the remarks passed by Justice Gangopadhyay, the proceedings before Justice Amrita Sinha will not be conducted in a free, fair, and unbiased manner, his plea claimed.
The counsel cited that Banerjee is being summoned by ED and CBI pursuant to orders of Justice Amrita Sinha.
He claimed it is imperative that the matter should be heard by a different bench in view of the order passed on January 29, 2024, by the Supreme Court in suo moto proceedings.
After hearing submissions, the apex court tagged the writ petition the suo moto proceedings “In Re: Orders of Calcutta High Court Dated January 24 and January 25, and ancillary issues”.
The plea claimed Justice Gangopadhyay “has in transgression to all principles of judicial impropriety, made it his life’s mission, to continue to pass disparaging remarks against the petitioner herein knowing very well that the petitioner is a Member of Parliament and such sporadic remarks completely unrelated to any judicial proceedings before him are causing grave prejudice to the petitioner not only in the on-going proceedings before a judge of the same High Court, and thus carrying weight, but also in the eyes of the public, especially in the run-up to the 2024 Lok Sabha elections”.