oppn parties Justice Chanda Of Calcutta HC Exits From The Nandigram Poll Result Case

News Snippets

  • Supreme Court rules that functional disability should be the deciding factor in granting road accident damages and not any doctor-issued disability certificate
  • Supreme Court flagged the fact that nearly 56% of the vehicles plying in India were uninsured and asked the government to challan them
  • An Air India flight from Phuket to Delhi encountered severe turbulence and 17 passengers were admitted to hospital with injuries
  • Calcutta HC said that heavens won't fall if Vande Matram is made mandatory to sing in madrasas
  • Kolkata Municipal Corporation has sought government nod for increasing city's wards to 200+ to keep residents in each ward between 16000 to 18000
  • Government has said that partially filled online Census forms may be allowed
  • Government may allow fees on UPI payments above Rs 2000, except on transfer between two individuals
  • Brent crude falls below $80 per barrel
  • Government has increased the LIC offer for sale to Rs 31,400cr with an additional 4% on the block
  • Stock markets become nervous on Tuesday due to Gulf situation: Sensex slides 210 points and Nifty sheds 159 points ahead of RBI MPC meets today
  • Indian cricket team lands in Sri Lanka for a 2-Test series
  • A former French Navy pilot who had alleged that IAF had lost Rafales during Operation Sindoor has been held in France on spying charges
  • An ordinary zari worked living just 100km away from Kolkata was stunned to find Rs 100cr deposited in the bank account. The bank has frozen her account pending enquiry
  • Businessmen in Kolkata gets a Rs 5-crore extortion call, allegedly from the Lawrence Bishnoi gang
  • NTA floats tenders to secure offices and exam materials round-the-clock
Tarun Tejpal, former editor of Tehelka, was sentenced to 10 years in jail by Bombay HC for raping a colleague. This judgment overturns the acquittal by a Goa sessions court
oppn parties
Justice Chanda Of Calcutta HC Exits From The Nandigram Poll Result Case

By Sunil Garodia
First publised on 2021-07-07 14:02:55

About the Author

Sunil Garodia Editor-in-Chief of indiacommentary.com. Current Affairs analyst and political commentator. Author of Cyber Scams in India, Digital Arrest, The Money Trap and The Human Hack

Although Justice Kaushik Chanda of the Calcutta High Court has exited from the case chief minister Mamata Banerjee had filed challenging her electoral loss in Nadigram to BJP's Suvendhu Adhikari, he termed the chief minister's action of writing to the CJ asking for his removal for "conflict of interest" a "preplanned move to malign a judge" and imposed a Rs 5 lakh fine on her. The TMC has also alleged that Justice Chanda was previously involved with the BJP.

But one thing which Justice Chanda said and which is very pertinent to the present demand of removing a judge from the case was when he questioned the chief minister's logic that he could be biased against her as she had objected to his confirmation as a permanent judge of the Calcutta HC. Justice Chanda said that if that yardstick was to be applied, no judge of the Calcutta HC would be fit enough to hear the case as she must have "either objected to or confirmed the appointment" of all judges.

It is clear that if someone can fear bias against self for having objected to an appointment, it can also be said that if a judge who was recommended or approved for posting hears the case, he or she might favour the person. If bias is important, then favour is also equally important and the same yardstick has to be applied.

Conflict of interest is a serious matter. But lately, it is being used in a cavalier manner. Also the matter of asking judges to exit cases for this or that reason is getting out of hand. When the CJ of a High Court assigns a case, normally there should not be any objection unless the conflict is serious or a point of law is involved. Judges perform their duty according to law as per materials placed before them. If there is any bias in the judgment, it is open to the petitioner to go for an appeal. But aspersions should not be cast on judges even before they hear cases and pronounce judgments as it amounts to putting pressure on the judiciary.