Calcutta HC admits plea seeking action against Mamata Banerjee for 'anti-judiciary' remarks

Kolkata, April 25: The Calcutta High Court on Thursday admitted a petition filed by CPI-M Rajya Sabha MP and senior advocate Bikas Ranjan Bhattacharya seeking action against West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee for her alleged anti-judiciary remarks made in the past two days.

However, the division bench of Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam maintained that although the plea has been admitted, whether the court will take any action in the matter will be decided by a separate bench.

As the administrative head of the high court, the Chief Justice will decide which bench will hear the matter.

The Chief Minister’s comments against a section of the judiciary came after the Calcutta High Court on Monday cancelled 25,753 appointments in teaching and non-teaching posts made by the West Bengal School Service Commission (WBSSC) in 2016.

On Thursday morning, after Bhattacharya sought the attention of the division bench, the latter asked him to file an affidavit in the matter in the second half. Accordingly, Bhattacharya filed the affidavit, arguing that the court needs to caution the Chief Minister so that she refrains from making 'anti-judiciary' comments.

Bhattacharya also pointed out the instances when the Chief Minister attacked a section of the judiciary and the courts.

“The Chief Minister is claiming that the courts have been sold out and the judges are having political outlooks. The judges operate according to their jurisprudence. Comments like courts have been sold out are simply unacceptable. It is an attack on the dignity of the judiciary,” Bhattacharya argued.

To recall, addressing an election rally in Bolpur on Wednesday, Banerjee said, "The BJP controls the affairs of the high courts due to its financial strength. I am not saying anything against the Supreme Court. We are still seeking justice there. But in the high courts, the BJP always has its way. Others do not get justice."

At another poll rally on Tuesday, she said, “I do not want to name anybody. The judges will earn their livelihood from the public exchequer. The state exchequer will bear the cost of their security. Yet they will terminate services.”