Read Time: 14 minutes

Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya of Calcutta High Court on Monday criticised Acting Chief Justice Rajesh Bindal and the court administration over “whimsical modus operandi” when a case which the former was hearing was “suddenly” transferred to a Division Bench stating that his court did not have the jurisdiction to take up the matter.

“In the present case, despite a specific judicial order making the matter returnable on the next working day at the top and despite this Bench having determination to take up the matter both on July 16, 2021 and today, which is the next working day thereafter, the matter is not appearing in my list. I was taken by surprise when it was disclosed by my court officer, on scrutiny, that the same is appearing before a different Division Bench,” stated Justice Bhattacharyya

It must be noted that on Friday ie 16^th July he had directed the central project coordinator in charge of the virtual hearing to explain why technical glitches have become a regular feature. He had asked as to why proceedings should not be drawn up against the court administration, including the registrar general and the central project coordinator, in particular, for criminal contempt of court.

He in the present case said that he did not issue a criminal contempt but stopped short of doing so in his order dated July 16, 2021, nor the order he passed was in a civil revision case under Article 227 of the Constitution of India appealable before a Division Bench.

“Although it has been clarified that the Chief Justice (including Acting Chief Justice) is the Master of the Roster and “more equal among equals” (not by Orwell but our own Supreme Court), the excess equality pertains only to the Administrative Side of this court and cannot override the Appellate Side Rules, framed and modified by the Full Court comprised of all Judges of this Hon’ble Court,” he added.

The Appellate Side Rules of the court clearly provides for quite a long time now that these matters are to be heard by Single Judges, coupled with the fact, as indicated above, that this court had determination on both the relevant dates to take up such matters; this creates translucence in the minds of all concerned parties, he said.

“Do not wash your dirty linen in public” is a nice defence for the beneficiaries of an oppressive/corrupt system, but is the anathema of transparency, which is in-built in the concept of the judiciary being the last bastion of democracy.

“All stakeholders to the dispensation of justice, including the litigants, the members of the Bar, my esteemed colleagues, the Registry as well as every staff of this court, are entitled to the knowledge regarding the exact administrative mechanism in force at a relevant point of time for the allocation of cases.”

The “Master of Roster” concept cannot be equated with the “Master of all I survey”, he asserted.

He further listed out the circumstances of the present case, which were unprecedented and led him to take up the matter by treating it to be on the day’s list –

• After the order was passed on July 16, 2021, long after the court hours, my regular Assistant Court Officer (ACO), who was not present in court on the date, informed me, by following his duty to the letter, which the Registrar General had called for the records of the case from this court.
• As per my instruction, my ACO indicated to the Registrar General (RG), that she should not have the audacity or the gall to dictate as to what matter shall be allocated to each Bench, particularly in the teeth of a judicial order dated July 16, 2021.

“Chutzpah” (Yiddish) is probably not appreciated in the higher echelons of power. However, opacity creates whispers in the corridors and is not healthy for a judicial system.

• I was amazed when my officer, as per my instruction, next intimated me that the RG had been directed to call for the records, to be allocated before a Division Bench, despite my judicial order dated July 16, 2021, on the instruction of the Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice of this court.
• An instruction had been issued by the Hon’ble Acting Chief Justice to the above effect, if the photocopy forwarded to me via my officer, by the RG, is to be taken on face value.
• This Bench had determination on the relevant date, that is, July 16, 2021 as well as today, I felt it most indecent that, without showing the minimum courtesy of contacting me directly, the matter was sought to be assigned before some other Bench.
• The circumstances acquire peculiarity not merely because of the whimsical modus operandi adopted in suddenly assigning the matter before a Division Bench not having jurisdiction to take up these matters, but also from the fact that, by the previous order dated July 16, 2021, I had directed a show-cause to be filed by the Central Project Coordinator (CPC) and had made certain caustic comments against the entire High Court administration including the RG and all concerned.
• I was ever contacted by the RG or the Acting Chief Justice through His Lordship’s Secretary or O.S.D. (Officer on Special Duty) seeking either my consent or at least having the courtesy to inform me about such assignment, which negates my judicial order in administrative capacity.

“I have serious doubts about the transparency of the system of dispensation of justice in our court in view of the above chain of events. Hence, I feel it my duty to inform all the beneficiaries and victims of such translucence in the system, since not only the litigants and the members of the Bar are stakeholders in the matter, but also my esteemed colleagues on the Bench and other staff of this court,” he added

He further clarified and said, “I took the trouble of recording the above chronology of events for the knowledge of all. I sincerely hope that the uploading of this order will, at least, not be prevented by the powers-that-be, so that the contents of the order may appear in public domain.”

Lastly he stated that, “I have no special interest in the matter on merits and feel it appropriate that, by following the basic tenets of transparency and judicial decorum, the matter, that is, CO No.891 of 2021 ought to be heard on merits by the Division Bench where the same has been assigned by the Master of the Roster of cases, subject to the said Bench having determination to hear this matter in accordance with law.”

[Case Title - Sri Jadav Saredar @ Jadab Sardar v. Sri Basudeb Tarafder & Ors]