'Unwarranted'': Supreme Court Expunges Scathing Remarks Of Calcutta High Court Against CAT In Alapan Bandyopadhyay Case

The Supreme Court on Thursday expunged the adverse remarks made by a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court while allowing the special leave petition filed by the Centre challenging the High Court's order of setting aside the order passed by the CAT Principal bench to transfer former West Bengal Chief Secretary Alapan Bandyopadhyay's petition from the Kolkata bench to New Delhi.The High Court had made the remarks against the CAT Principal Chairman.A Bench comprising Justices AM Khanwilkar and CT Ravikumar observed that the remarks made by the Division Bench comprising Justices Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Rabindranath Samanta were 'unwarranted', 'uncalled for' and based on 'unfounded assumptions'. "To observe sobriety, we say that the remarks made by the High Court were unwarranted, uncalled for and avoidable being sharp reaction on unfounded assumptions. Ergo, we have no hesitation to hold that they were wholly unnecessary for the purpose of deciding the correctness or otherwise of the order of transfer. Hence, they are liable to be expunged. We do so", the Court observed. During the proceedings, the Union had expressed a grievance that the High Court made some harsh or disparaging remarks in the impugned judgment against the Chairman of the Tribunal. The Solicitor General had submitted that they were unsolicited and had relied on various decisions to stress upon the requirement of their expunction. Taking into consideration the grievance raised, the Bench observed that the fact that the impugned judgment contains observations and remarks amounting to disparagement. "Obviously, the High Court found undue haste in the matter of disposal of P.T.No.215/2021 and that also persuaded the High Court to make such scathing observations and remarks in fact, against the Principal Bench of the Tribunal. But then, a perusal of the materials on record would reveal that WPCT No.78/2021 filed before the High Court that culminated in the impugned judgment was also passed with almost equal speed. That apart, both the order in P.T.No.215/2021 and the final judgment and order in WPCT No.78/2021 were passed, respectively, by the Tribunal and the High Court, after hearing both parties. The fact that the impugned judgment contain observations and remarks amounting to disparagement and as such, scathing in effect is not in dispute", the Bench observed further. Senior Advocate Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for Alapan Bandhopadhyay, expressed no objection to the expunction of the remarks.The judgment, authored by Justice Ravikumar, referred to the observations in Braj Kishore Thakur v. Union of India wherein the Apex Court had ruled, "No greater damage can be caused to the administration of justice and to the confidence of people in judicial institutions when Judges of higher Courts publicly express lack of faith in the subordinate Judges." Furthermore, the Court noted that as a matter of law the Chairman could pass an order of transfer under Section 25 of the Act suo motu. Therefore, Hence, the observations and remarks, ' ought not to have been made against the Chairman of the Tribunal', it was stated further. Furthermore, the Court on Thursday held that the Calcutta High Court lacked territorial jurisdiction to set aside the transfer order passed by CAT Principal Bench at New Delhi. The Court however has granted liberty to Bandyopadhyay to approach the jurisdictional High Court to challenge the order of CAT Principal Bench.Calcutta High Court OrderThe Calcutta High Court bench of Justices Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Rabindranath Samanta had expressed strong reservations to the manner in which the principal Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) favoured the Central government in its attempt to transfer a case moved by Alapan Bandyopadhyay, former Chief Secretary and incumbent Chief Advisor to the Chief Minister from the Calcutta to New Delhi. The bench with dismay had observed that, "The entire modus operandi adopted by the Union of India reeks of mala fides. It is unfortunate that the Principal Bench of the CAT nurtured such efforts by passing the impugned transfer order, thereby paying obeisance to the diktat of the Union of India, which has been repeatedly held by the Supreme Court and various High Courts not to be a favoured litigant. Rather, the responsibility of meting out justice and serving the cause of justice is on a much higher pedestal for the Union of India than an ordinary individual litigant."Setting aside the transfer order, the Bench had observed, "The order of the Principal Bench not only violates the legal right conferred on the writ petitioner under Rule 6 of the CAT Rules, 1987, read with Sections 35 and 36 of the 1985 Act, as well as the petitioner's fundamental right of equality before the law, as enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution, which is the grundnorm of the Indian legal fabric".The Court further observed that such an action even by a quasi-judicial authority...

'Unwarranted'': Supreme Court Expunges Scathing Remarks Of Calcutta High Court Against CAT In Alapan Bandyopadhyay Case

Aaratrika Bhaumik

Tags