Calcutta HC reserves judgment on Mamata's plea on Nandigram election result

Lawyer representing CM says judge Kaushik Chanda should recuse himself owing to his allegiance to BJP

Mamata Banerjee: File picture

Arnab Ganguly   |   TT  |  Calcutta   |   24.06.21: A single bench of the Calcutta high court on Thursday reserved order on an application moved by Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee seeking the judge’s recusal on hearing a petition filed by her challenging the results of the Nandigram Assembly seat.

The chief minister had raised objections to her petition coming up before Justice Chanda, who was close to the BJP leadership since his days as a lawyer and represented the party in legal matters.

During the course of today’s hearing, Justice Chanda questioned why the matter (of recusal) was not raised earlier.

“This case was listed before me on 18 June. That day no one said that petitioner had sought re-assignment apprehending bias?”, Justice Chanda asked. “Is it not duty of the counsel to point this out? You appear in courts across the country Dr Singhvi, what is the standard practice?”

Responding to the query, Singhvi, appearing on behalf of Mamata said, the issue was not raised on June 18 as they were yet to file a formal application.

Singhvi went on to present instances to establish Justice Chanda’s “close, personal, professional, pecuniary and ideological relationship” with the BJP. He also submitted that Justice Chanda was yet to be appointed as a permanent judge of the high court and Mamata had raised her objection on any such confirmation. When Singhvi showed some photographs of Justice Chanda seen with BJP leaders in party events, the judge admitted the images were his.

Singhvi said any observer may have “reasonable apprehension” that “impartial justice” may not be done as there is a clear case of conflict of interest.

“Justice must not only be dome but seen to be done. If fair-minded people are likely to prejudge the case, they will not have confidence in the justice system. It is duty of the Court to see that proceedings are free from any partiality,” Singhvi said.

The judge wondered whether his recusal since the media trial June 18 onwards would imply he was influenced by it.  

“What is it worth to continue in a case like this with so much controversy? I am not saying that your Lordship’s shoulders are not broad enough to bear it. But what is the worth?" Singhvi asked.