SC transfers to itself pleas related to alleged irregularities in MBBS admissions from Calcutta HC

The bench also comprising the four most senior judges of the court — Justices Sanjiv Khanna, B R Gavai, Surya Kant and Aniruddha Bose — which had stayed the proceedings on January 25 said, “The proceedings in the writ petition (before the single bench)…under article 226 of the Constitution and in the Letters Patent Appeal (before the division bench)…are transferred from the Calcutta High Court to this court. All parties shall complete their pleadings within a period of three weeks”.

Senior Advocate Maninder Singh, representing an SC/ST group trust, said 14 out of 52 certificates for medical admissions have been found to be fake by the scrutiny committee. Singh said the trust filed a petition as it had come to know that the original petitioner before the Calcutta High Court may not approach the top court and urged the court to list the petition too.

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the West Bengal Government, said it had filed a status report and pointed out 14 certificates have been cancelled and four FIRs filed.

The CJI said they want the Bengal Government to file an affidavit stating all facts. “We would like to have an affidavit by the state government on what is the current position, on what is the extent of the certificates found to be fake and what steps have been taken by the state,” CJI Chandrachud said.

Sibal said in the case of a fake caste certificate, there is a scrutiny committee where principles of natural justice have to be followed. “That’s all been done.” To which, CJI Chandrachud said, “Put that all on record”.

Sibal added, “The learned (single) judge continues to take these kinds of matters now. This is the problem now. Your Lordships should think about what should be done. Because in future also the learned judge is going to do the same thing considering what he has done in the past.”

However, the SC bench said it wouldn’t be proper to cast aspersions on either the single judge or division bench. “We will deal with it in a different way here. We have brought everything here… Anything that we say here should not impinge upon the dignity of a High Court,” said the CJI.

Sibal said, “We have filed a couple of photographs where he is attending rallies… all these factors Your Lordships may look at”.

Appearing for TMC leader Abhishek Banerjee, Senior Advocate A M Singhvi referred to the order passed by the Supreme Court in April 2023 directing reassignment of the case when he approached it after the single judge allegedly made certain remarks against him.

Singhvi said, “Unfortunately, Your Lordship’s reasonableness and caution are misunderstood as a sign of weakness. It is after your Lordships reassigned this very case earlier on my petition that all these strings of comments are happening every day. See some of the photographs filed. They will shock Your Lordships. It’s all happening after Your Lordships reassigned. This is not about a particular case It’s about bringing disrepute to the institution of judiciary”.

However, the CJI said, “There is a Chief Justice of the HC who is in charge of the assignment of cases to the different benches. So let’s not take away or arrogate to ourselves powers which are conferred on the chief Justice of the HC. I am sure the Chief Justice is taking stock of everything”.

On January 25, a single-judge bench of Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay of the Calcutta High Court had directed that a CBI investigation ordered into alleged irregularities in MBBS admissions in the state will continue, despite an order of a division bench to the contrary. In the written order, Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay had also levelled accusations against a fellow judge, Justice Soumen Sen.

On January 24, the single-judge bench of Justice Gangopadhyay had ordered a CBI probe into alleged irregularities in the admission of MBBS candidates in state-run medical colleges and hospitals in West Bengal. However, the state government moved the division bench of Justices Sen and Uday Kumar, which ordered an interim stay on the single-bench order. The state government had made a verbal appeal before the division bench, which admitted the petition.

A day later, Justice Gangopadhyay had directed that the CBI probe into the matter shall continue. He had also said in the order that he “was told” by another judge, Justice Amrita Sinha, “Some days back… that Justice Sen called her in his chamber on the last day before vacation, and like a political leader, he dictated Justice Sinha three things: i) Mr Avishek Banerjee has a political future, he should not be disturbed; ii) Live-streaming shall be stopped in Justice Sinha’s court; iii) The two writ petitions before Justice Sinha, where the name of Mr Avishek Banerjee is involved, are to be dismissed”.

“Justice Sinha intimated this to me over the telephone on vacation. Subsequently, Justice Sinha reported it to the Hon’ble Chief Justice of this High Court and I was told that the Hon’ble Chief Justice of this court has communicated this to the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India,” the single judge had added in the order.

On January 27, the Supreme Court which took suo motu cognisance of the issue stayed all further proceedings before the Calcutta HC in the matter.