The Supreme Court’s special sitting at 8 pm on Friday, April 28, to stay Calcutta high court judge Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay’s direction to it brings to the fore the relevance of judicial discipline in sustaining people’s confidence in judiciary.
Justice Gangopadhyay had on Friday, directed the Supreme Court’s Secretary General to provide him with the translation of his controversial media interview on the West Bengal teachers’ recruitment scam that was placed before the Supreme Court bench of the Chief Justice of India, D.Y. Chandrachud, and Justice P.S. Narasimha in the morning. This led to concerns on whether he had exceeded his jurisdiction and violated the judicial discipline applicable to the Judges of the Higher Judiciary.
The CJI-led bench had, in view of the interview, directed the acting Chief Justice of the Calcutta high court, T.S. Sivagnanam, to reassign the pending proceedings in the case being heard by Justice Gangopadhyay to another judge.
“The judge to whom it is reassigned shall be at liberty to take up any application in that regard. Anybody who wants to make an application, that judge will consider it,” the Supreme Court’s order, issued by the CJI-led bench, read. On April 24, the same bench had made strong observations against sitting judges giving interviews to the media.
Justice Gangopadhyay was hearing a public interest litigation (PIL) petition alleging massive corruption in the recruitment of assistant teachers in primary schools of the state on the basis of the 2014 Teacher Eligibility Test. The Supreme Court had earlier refused to entertain a petition filed by the West Bengal government questioning the maintainability of the plea before the high court.
Several division benches of the high court had recused themselves from hearing appeals against the interim orders issued by Justice Gangopadhyay in this case. Therefore, the Supreme Court’s intervention at this stage, on the ground of his interview, has raised eyebrows. When a division bench of the high court did stay his judgment in the case last year, he had publicly complained that his hands were being tied again and again.
Also read: Bengal SSC Recruitment Scam: How a ‘Focused’ Judge Exposed the Racket
Justice Gangopadhyay had earlier directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to question the ruling Trinamool Congress party national general secretary, Abhishek Banerjee. Banerjee is the nephew of Bengal chief minister and TMC chief Mamata Banerjee and is understood to be influential in Bengal.
Apparently irked by the Supreme Court’s intervention into the high court’s Chief Justice’s functions as the master of the roster, Justice Gangopadhyay suo motu passed the order directing the Supreme Court’s Secretary General to furnish the translation, giving the latter time till midnight on Friday to comply with it.
The suo motu intervention by Justice Gangopadhyay, and the tone and tenor of his order, imposing a deadline on a Supreme Court’s senior official, smacked of his ignorance of jurisdictional powers of a high court judge, and the separation of judicial and administrative functions of the Chief Justice of India. The Secretary General of the Supreme Court, being the senior-most employee of the court, comes under the direct supervision of the CJI, in his capacity as the administrative head of the Supreme Court.
The CJI’s vast administrative powers as the head of the entire judiciary in general, and that of the Supreme Court in particular, and as the master of the roster, cannot be diluted by the judicial directions of his colleagues in the Supreme Court or by the judges of the high courts.
It can be debated whether the CJI can use his judicial arm to interfere with the administrative powers of a high court chief justice, to assign cases. In our constitutional scheme, the high courts enjoy equal powers of judicial review like that of the Supreme Court, and can hear and decide constitutional questions as well.
The chief justices of the high Courts too enjoy powers as master of the roster within their respective high courts, just as the CJI within the Supreme Court.
More important, administratively, the high courts are not subordinate to the Supreme Court and they enjoy considerable autonomy in their functioning. Therefore, the CJI’s “direction” to the Chief Justice of the high court to reassign the case to a judge other than Justice Gangopadhyay, as a punitive step for the media interview he had given on the pending matter, comes as a surprise.
But the response of Justice Gangopadhyay to this administrative interference by the CJI, as the head of the judicial family in the country as a whole, was worse than what he might have considered as a judicial remedy, as it conveyed a clear and unmistakable sign of judicial indiscipline.
The controversial interview
In his interview to the news channel, ABP Ananda, Justice Gangopadhyay had reportedly said that Abhishek Banerjee should face jail for three months if he fails to substantiate his allegation that a section of the judiciary was hand in glove with the BJP.
“I am aware that after the interview, there will be a controversy, but whatever I am doing is as per The Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct, which state that judges have the freedom of expression but that whatever they say has to be under the purview of the law,” the judge had said.
Also read: Why a HC Judge’s Interview to a TV Channel Is Being Seen as a Crusade Against Corruption
Justice Gangopadhyay claimed that he believed in “strictest action” against anyone who points a finger at the judiciary.
The judge said he was in Ladakh when Abhishek had made comments regarding the judiciary. “I thought I would issue a ruling against him, summon him, take action. Once back in Kolkata, I found that a petition was filed in this regard, but a division bench did not consider it. They thought he would get extra attention. But I have a different opinion.”
Claiming he had “never compromised with corruption”, Justice Gangopadhyay had gone on to add: “I want to pass judgments which, long after I am not there, will come up before researchers, who will know that there was a judge like this.”
It is interesting to note that the interview, which was relied upon for divesting the part-heard matter from Justice Gangopadhyay, made only a general reference to the allegation of corruption in the matter, though it was unusual for a sitting judge to directly refer to political personalities in the course of an interview.
Courtroom Observations
But Justice Gangopadhyay seems to have made headlines not only because of his notable judgments, but also due to his loose tongue.
On November 26 last year, during a hearing in the recruitment case, Justice Gangopadhyay observed that he might have to ask the Election Commission to cancel the recognition of the TMC as a political party and withdraw its logo. “No one has the right to (mess) with the constitution,” he added.
The observation came after West Bengal Education Secretary Manish Jain told the court that a decision to create additional teachers’ posts to accommodate “illegal” appointments was taken by the state cabinet and ordered by Bengal education minister Bratya Basu. Jain added that he himself was not present at the said meeting.
Wondering how the cabinet could take such a decision, Justice Gangopadhyay observed: “The state cabinet will have to announce that they are not backing the illegal appointments and also withdraw the notification of May 19 (2022) for the creation of additional teachers’ appointments. Else, I will take such a decision that is unprecedented in the country… If necessary, I will make the entire state Cabinet a party in the matter and summon each member. If necessary, I will issue a show-cause notice to all of them.”
Justice Gangopadhyay’s comments had then drawn sharp criticism questioning his moral authority to make such comments as a Judge.
The Restatement of Values of Judicial Life, as adopted by the Full Court Meeting of the Supreme Court of India, on May 7, 1997, says a judge shall not enter into public debate or express his views in public on political matters or on matters that are pending or are likely to arise for judicial determination. Another code says a Judge is expected to let his judgments speak for themselves and that he shall not give interview to the media.
To be fair, the Supreme Court order divesting Justice Gangopadhyay the teachers recruitment scam case being heard by him, should make it clear how he was prima facie guilty of violating these codes, and record his version as well. Indeed, a petition seeking a ban on telecasting the interview was dismissed by the high court last year through a reasoned order.
It is not clear whether this order was placed before the CJI, along with Justice Gangopadhyay’s interview.