'Duty to Disclose Brother's BJP Role,' Calcutta High Court Judge in Mamata Banerjee Election Petition, TMC Expresses Full Faith

While hearing former West Bengal Chief Minister and TMC leader Mamata Banerjee's election petition challenging the election of present CM Suvendu Adhikari from the Bhabanipur Assembly constituency, the Calcutta High Court on Tuesday witnessed an unusual exchange after the presiding judge disclosed in open court that his elder brother serves as a national spokesperson of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).

Making the disclosure before entering into the merits of the matter, the Court observed that it was its duty to place the fact on record so that no concerns were raised at a later stage regarding the proceedings.

"Before we get into the merits, I want to make it very clear that my elder brother is the national spokesperson for the BJP and that might have some concerns. I'll hear it only after full disclosure so you don't have any issues later on," the Court remarked.

Senior Advocate Kalyan Bandopadhyay, appearing for Banerjee, immediately expressed complete faith in the Court and opposed any suggestion that the disclosure would affect the proceedings.

"I have my all confidence and regard upon your lordship and I believe that when a person has become a judge," Bandopadhyay submitted.

Responding, the Court stated: "It is my duty."

Bandopadhyay further told the Court that he had rejected suggestions from others regarding the issue and maintained full confidence in the judge's independence.

"I've been told by others but I said I'm not concerned about it," he said.

The senior counsel went on to emphasize that his respect for the Court was based solely on the judge's conduct and independence.

"I know my judge. I'm not doing one matter here, I've done other matters. Whether I've lost or not that's a different issue but my respect and confidence to you as a judge will not be determined on any other factor," Bandopadhyay submitted.

He further remarked that judicial independence was the cornerstone of the institution.

"I believe that I'm here in court and parliament. Indian judiciary can be independent only when a judge is independent," Bandopadhyay said.

The Court agreed, observing that the disclosure was made in discharge of its judicial responsibility.

"Absolutely. It was my responsibility," the judge responded.

Bandopadhyay thereafter described the judge as "one of the very gentleman judges of this Court" and reiterated that outcomes in litigation did not affect his confidence in the institution.

The Court subsequently admitted Banerjee's election petition challenging Adhikari's victory from the Bhabanipur Assembly constituency.

While issuing directions in the matter, the Court ordered preservation of CCTV footage, Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) and Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) machines relating to the constituency. The Election Commission was also directed to preserve the relevant electoral records pending adjudication of the petition.

The election petition raises allegations regarding the conduct of the election process in Bhabanipur and seeks scrutiny of electoral materials, including CCTV footage, which the petitioner contends may be relevant for adjudication of the dispute.

Case No: EP/9/2026

Case: MAMATA BANERJEE VS SUVENDU ADHIKARI AND ORS