Mamata case judge reminisces of days as lawyer, reserves order

Calcutta high court judge Kausik Chanda on Thursday observed that he was put on a “media trial” for his association with Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) prior to judgeship, and reserved the order on West Bengal chief minister Mamata Banerjee’s plea that he drop out from hearing her petition against BJP leader Suvendu Adhikari’s election win in Nandigram.

Banerjee was present in the court through video conferencing, as per the requirement under the Representation of People Act to present her election petition seeking re-evaluation of the Nandigram assembly poll results. The Trinamool Congress chief lost by a margin of less than 2,000 votes to her former aide though her party stormed to a massive victory to retain power.

The judge did not specify the date of the verdict on Banerjee’s plea for his recusal.

The 90-minute hearing in the high court saw an intriguing debate between justice Chanda and senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, who appeared for Banerjee, and claimed that there was overwhelming material to show that the judge had been “an active member of BJP” and held a “deeply personal, professional and ideological association” with the party.

Justice Chanda, during the proceedings, not only expressed his displeasure against Banerjee’s counsel for not citing “likelihood of bias” when the matter first came up before his court on June 18, but also quipped repeatedly about how he helped BJP in several legal wrangles before the high court when he was a lawyer.

While Singhvi took justice Chanda through various news reports and photographs mentioning him as a counsel for BJP in political cases relating to permission for Amit Shah’s rally, and the conduct of panchayat polls in 2014, the judge retorted: “When I look back at these cases as a lawyer, it fills me up with joy that I appeared in these important cases. After Amit Shah’s rally was allowed by the high court, I was one of the last ones to join the rally in front of the Victoria House in Kolkata. I was given a grand welcome with garlands and applause. All newspapers in the state carried my name and photograph too.”

As Singhvi continued showing the newspaper clippings, mostly from between 2010 and 2014 when justice Chanda was appearing for the BJP before the Calcutta high court, the judge recollected that the BJP was not a popular party in the state when he was initially representing it.

“I can still remember the first matter when I appeared for the BJP. I told the division bench that I was appearing for Bharatiya Janata Party. The bench asked me twice – which party. I had to repeat – BJP. In those days, it was beyond the imagination of the high court that anybody from BJP would come to them,” he said.

The high court judge also told Singhvi that the BJP got its first major publicity in West Bengal after it jumped in the fray in support of the state election commission, which was batting for panchayat polls in the state before the high court. “Anandabazar Patrika (newspaper) carried the BJP’s name on its front page...you are now showing me reports of Hindustan Times and Times of India too. I did not know national newspapers also carried this.”

Singhvi conceded that BJP has come a long way and made great strides since 2010. The senior lawyer then proceeded to read out social media posts from TMC leader Derek O’Brien and advocate Prashant Bhushan with photographs of justice Chanda sharing a stage with West Bengal BJP president Dilip Ghosh when he was a lawyer. Singhvi said that justice Chanda had also attended the party’s legal cell programmes.

“There are some reactions to these tweets asking if these are my photographs or they are morphed. I can confirm these are my pictures.... Mr Singhvi, are you aware of the composition and structure of BJP? How the BJP functions? I was never the chairman of the legal cell though,” the judge said.

Singhvi, on his part, told the judge that individual cases come and go, and that no case should be worthy of this much controversy. “With this plethora of materials, your lordship will only be elevating your stature by recusing from this case. Recently, two judges in the Supreme Court also recused from two cases in the state. Recusal is a normal thing. It is the perception of bias that should be enough. I should not have had to argue so much,” he added.

To this, the judge asked Singhvi if it was not the duty of Banerjee and her legal team to raise their objections on the first date of hearing when the case was taken up on June 18, especially because she had by then already written to the chief justice of the high court to assign the election petition to a different bench.

“You don’t say a thing before me when the case is taken up. But when the judge goes back home, he finds a flurry of social media messages and tweets, creating a furore. There is already a media trial going on before the matter is taken up by this court. Hundreds of tweets are there asking me to recuse. Is it not that there is already a media trial and I can’t decide this without getting influenced? If I recuse now, will I not be giving in to this media trial?” justice Chanda asked Singhvi.

Singhvi submitted that public opinion does not matter for a judicial determination but the principal issue remained of perception of bias and the controversy surrounding the judge’s links with a party in opposition. He added that the CM had earlier this year also “conveyed her objections and reservations” about justice Chanda’s confirmation as permanent judge.

Justice Chanda pointed out that while Singhvi was a member of Congress, he was being assisted in this matter by senior lawyer SN Mookherjee who was from BJP while the two appeared for a TMC leader. “If you both can appear together, why cannot the judge be trusted?” the judge asked Singhvi, who replied that judges had a higher duty than the lawyers.

“I am only concerned about a case that has been assigned to me and there is a recusal application filed. I will decide this legally. Let me consider this and pass the judgment. Judgment is reserved,” said justice Chanda.

Justice Chanda was designated as senior advocate in June 2014. He served as an additional solicitor general of India from April 2015 to September 2019 and was elevated to the high court as an additional judge in October 2019.