The ongoing controversy surrounding the fake caste certificate case in West Bengal has taken a significant turn with the intervention of the Supreme Court. The apex court has issued a notice to the state of West Bengal and has put a stay on all further proceedings before the Calcutta High Court, marking a rare conflict between a single judge and a division bench.
The crux of the matter revolves around alleged irregularities in the issuance of reserved category certificate and the admission of MBBS candidates in state-run medical colleges and hospitals in West Bengal. The Supreme Court, in taking suo moto cognisance of an order passed by a single bench of the Calcutta High Court, aims to address the conflicting orders and accusations within the judicial system.
A five-judge constitution bench, led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, is set to conduct a special hearing on January 29 to delve into the complexities of the case and provide clarity on the legal issues at hand.
The conflict originated from orders passed by a single judge bench and a division bench of the Calcutta High Court that disagreed with each other. Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay, leading the single judge bench, accused Justice Soumen Sen, who heads the division bench, of acting in favor of a political party in West Bengal. The single judge alleged that Justice Sen’s actions were intended to save a political party in power, raising concerns of misconduct.
In response to the division bench’s order, Justice Gangopadhyay directed authorities to ignore it and instructed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to initiate a probe into the alleged fake caste certificate matter. On January 24, the single judge also directed the Bengal Police to provide documents related to the case to the CBI.
However, the division bench stayed the single judge’s order of the probe in the fake certificate after it was brought to their attention. Subsequently, the single judge revisited the matter, instructing the West Bengal Police to hand over documents to the CBI. The division bench disagreed on Thursday, leading to the single judge hearing the matter again and passing remarks against Justice Sen.
The Supreme Court’s intervention is crucial in resolving the complex legal situation and restoring order within the Calcutta High Court. The suo moto cognisance underscores the seriousness of the situation, indicating the need for a comprehensive examination of the conflicting orders and allegations.
The special hearing scheduled for January 29 presents an opportunity to delve into the legal intricacies surrounding the alleged irregularities in MBBS admissions in West Bengal. The constitution bench, comprising legal experts, will have the task of analyzing the evidence, evaluating the accusations, and ensuring that justice is served in a fair and impartial manner.
One of the key aspects that the constitution bench may need to address is the nature of the conflict between the single judge and division bench. Understanding whether the disagreement stems from a legal interpretation of the case or involves other factors, such as political considerations, will be crucial in determining the appropriate course of action.
The allegations of political interference and misconduct against Justice Sen add another layer of complexity to the case. The constitution bench will likely scrutinize these allegations carefully, ensuring a fair inquiry into the conduct of the judges involved.
Moreover, the conflicting orders and counter-orders issued by the single judge and the division bench raise questions about the stability and coherence of the judicial process. The constitution bench’s role will extend beyond resolving the specific case to addressing systemic issues that may have contributed to the unusual conflict within the Calcutta High Court.
The Supreme Court’s decision to stay all further proceedings before the Calcutta High Court demonstrates a commitment to upholding the integrity of the judicial system. It also reflects a proactive approach to prevent any potential miscarriage of justice arising from the internal conflicts within the lower court.
As the legal proceedings unfold, the constitution bench will likely seek to provide clear guidelines and directives to prevent such conflicts from arising in the future. This may involve establishing protocols for handling disagreements between judges, ensuring transparent communication, and reinforcing the independence of the judiciary.
