‘We’ve been reduced to a mockery’: Judge in letter to acting CJ
The high court must get its act together. Our conduct is unbecoming of the majesty the high court commands ARINDAM SINHA, HC judge, in the purported letter
Calcutta high court judge Arindam Sinha has purportedly written a letter to acting chief justice Rajesh Bindal and 29 other judges of the court, saying the law was not followed when the transfer plea filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in the Narada case was listed before a division bench as a writ petition. He has also raised objection to several procedural matters, describing it as “mockery”.
Dated May 24, a copy of the document surfaced in the public domain on Friday morning, hours before the division bench of five judges granted conditional bail to the four high-profile accused. Several senior lawyers of the court told HT that such a letter, purportedly written by a sitting judge, is unprecedented. HT saw a copy of the letter but could not independently verify its authenticity. The judge could not be reached.
“The appellate side rules require a motion seeking transfer, either on the civil or criminal side, to be heard by a single judge. However, the first division bench took up the matter treating it to be a writ petition,” the letter says. “Even a writ petition under Article 228 of the Constitution should have gone to the learned single judge having determination. The communication could not have been treated as such a writ petition simply because no substantial question of law as to interpretation of the Constitution has been raised, as not recorded in order dated May 17, 2021, nor the subsequently filed application,” the letter says.
“The mob factor may be a ground on merits, for adjudication of the motion, but could the first division bench have taken it up and continue to hear it as a writ question, is the first question,” the letter says. “By operation of interim order dated May 17, the accused persons continto be in custody (jail) though they had obtained bail from designated court. When, on intervention of the high court, said persons were deprived liberty, there was no application on the record of this court, since the communication was not supported by affidavit,” the letter says, referring to the bail granted by the special CBI court hours after the arrest. The CBI moved the bench of the chief justice, challenging that order. The twojudge bench passed a stay order. “Whether the HC exercising power in the matter of transfer of a criminal case, at that stage on its own initiative, could have passed the order of stay, is the second question,” the letter says.
“On May 19, members of the first division bench passed separate orders expressing their divergent views. It appears, the presiding learned judge’s view followed view expressed by the junior learned judge. While the first view was grant of interim bail, view of the presiding learned judge prevailed as an interim measure, to become order dated May 21, 2021,” the letter says. It adds, “The HC must get its act together. Our conduct is unbecoming of the majesty the HC commands. We have been reduced to a mockery. I am requesting all of us to salvage the situation by taking steps for the purpose of reaffirming sanctity of our Rules and unwritten code of conduct.”