'Fair And Legitimate Criticism To Judgments Welcome But Should Be Without Malice': Calcutta HC Declines To Interfere In Row Over WB Bar Council's Letter To Remove Acting CJ

The Calcutta High Court on Thursday declined to interfere in a plea moved against the Chairman of the Bar Council of West Bengal over the recent letter addressed by the Bar Council of West Bengal to the Chief Justice of India N.V Ramana for the removal of the High Court's Acting Chief Justice Rajesh Bindal. A Bench comprising Justices Harish Tandon and Subhasis Dasgupta was adjudicating upon a public interest litigation filed by advocate Akshya Sarangi seeking the initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the West Bengal Bar Council Chairman Ashok Kumar Deb for 'using the official letterhead of the Bar Council to percolate his own views'. "Justice Bindal is a partial, unfair and biased judge whose continuance at High Court interferes with fair and impartial dispensation of justice," the letter by Ashok Kumar Deb, the Bar Council Chairman also happens to be a Member of Parliament belonging to the Trinamool Congress had stated. Further, the letter in question had addressed various instances wherein there had been alleged biased and improper listing and hearing of various cases like the Narada scam, Mamata Banerjee's election petition among others. Furthermore, the letter had mentioned that Justice Bindal had stayed an Interim order of bail passed by the Special CBI Court in favor of members of a certain political dispensation without giving the aggrieved parties an opportunity of being heard (Narada matter). It may be noted that on May 17, the Division Bench comprising Justice Bindal had stayed the bail granted by the Special CBI Court at Kolkata to four Trinamool Congress leaders - Firhad Hakim, Madan Mitra, Subrata Mukherjee and Sovan Chatterjee - who were arrested dramatically by CBI on May 17. Opining on the larger issue concerning the relationship between the Bar and the Bench, the Court observed, "The Bar and Bench are the two pillars of the judicial system. The synergy between the two is senital in que vive and co-ordination, co-operation in administration of the justice is required to be established in building the confidence of the public in the judicial system". Furthermore, the Court opined that 'fair and legitimate criticism to a judgement is always welcome', however when such an exercise is done with malice then stringent action must be taken against such persons. "The fair and legitimate criticism to a judgment in a healthy way is always welcome but if it is aimed with some motive and malice without any foundation on a real cause such errant person should be dealt with iron hands as it hampers the judicial system and fairness and impartiality of the Court in discharging their duties entrusted under the Constitution", the Court added. The petitioner-advocate had claimed to espouse the cause of four dissenting members of the State's Bar Council. He argued that the concerned letter could not be regarded as the view of the collective members of the Bar Council and that Deb had misused his Office to further his own views. It was further contended that neither a meeting of the members of the Bar Council had been called for nor had a resolution been taken in this regard as is evident from the letter of the four dissenting members. It was also pointed out that the members of the Bar Council had a closed-door meeting with the Acting Chief Justice on June 16, 2021 to make him aware of their grievances. On having sensed that the grievances were not addressed, a resolution was stated to have been taken on June 19, 2021 by the members of the Bar Council authorizing the Chairperson, to take a decision and write a letter, the petitioner contended. Such an action constitutes an 'inflagrant violation of the statutory provision and the rules governing the said Bar Council' amounting to misconduct, the petitioner argued. Thus, Deb's conduct is 'scurrilous, intemperate and aimed to tarnish the image of a Judge which have a ramification on the impartiality and fairness of the judicial system', it was further alleged. However, the Court declined to delve too deep into the controversy and accordingly noted that the concerned four dissenting members of the Bar Council were 'well educated, economically solvent and capable of taking decision in redressing the grievance raised by them.' Furthermore, reliance was also placed by the Bench on the Supreme Court's ruling in Brahmaprakash Sharma v. State of Uttar Pradesh wherein it was held that when any attack or comment is made on a Judge that disparages his character or is a defamatory statement affecting the judicial system at large, then strict action must be initiated against such persons. The Court also made a reference to the observations made by Justice Krishna Iyer in his celebrated Supreme Court judgment rendered in case of Re S. Mulgaookar. "The Court will act with seriousness and severity where justice is jeopardized by a gross and/or unfounded attack on the Judges, where the attack is calculated to obstruct or destroy the...

'Fair And Legitimate Criticism To Judgments Welcome But Should Be Without Malice': Calcutta HC Declines To Interfere In Row Over WB Bar Council's Letter To Remove Acting CJ

Aaratrika Bhaumik

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Aaratrika Bhaumik

'Fair And Legitimate Criticism To Judgments Welcome But Should Be Without Malice': Calcutta HC Declines To Interfere In Row Over WB Bar Council's Letter To Remove Acting CJ

Aaratrika Bhaumik

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Aaratrika Bhaumik

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers