A five-judge constitution bench on Saturday stayed the orders passed against each other by a single-judge bench and a division bench of Calcutta High Court that had created an unprecedented impasse in Indian legal history.
Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay of the high court had on Wednesday accepted a petitioner’s plea for a CBI probe into alleged irregularities in medical college admissions in Bengal last year.
On Thursday, a division bench headed by Justice Soumen Sen overruled the directive — apparently without an appeal being filed officially —but Justice Gangopadhyay responded with a counter-order.
Despite Saturday being a court holiday, a constitution bench headed by Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud held a special sitting after taking suo motu cognisance of the developments.
“We will take charge now,” the bench remarked orally, staying all the impugned orders and hinting that the high court benches in question may not be allowed to deal with the matter further.
The bench issued notices to the CBI, Bengal government and the public-interest petitioner, Ishita Soren, whose plea had led to the high court orders, and posted the next hearing to Monday.
All the five judges on the constitution bench are members of the high-powered collegium that appoints and transfers Supreme Court and high court judges. Apart from Justice Chandrachud, it includes Justices Sanjiv Khanna, B.R. Gavai, Surya Kant and Aniruddha Bose.
Soren, a Bankura resident, had in her petition before the single judge alleged she had failed to secure a medical course seat in the reserved category despite scoring the required marks in the NEET. She alleged that several candidates had secured seats by furnishing fake caste papers.
She sought a CBI probe saying the state authorities could not be relied upon for a fair investigation, a request Justice Gangopadhyay accepted on Wednesday.
On Thursday, a division bench quashed the FIR registered by the CBI on the single judge’s orders. But Justice Gangopadhyay declined to accept the division bench orders and directed the CBI to proceed with the probe. He also directed the high court registry to send a copy of the order to the Chief Justice of India and the chief justice of the high court.
On Saturday, attorney-general R. Venkataramani and solicitor-general Tushar Mehta appeared before the apex court for the Union government, while senior advocates Kapil Sibal and Huzefa Ahmadi represented the Bengal government. Abhishek Manu Singhvi appeared for Trinamul leader Abhishek Banerjee.
Mehta told the court the Centre did not support the orders passed by either high court bench and was “concerned” more with the procedural irregularities associated with the matter.
“I am not here defending either single-judge or division bench order. I am seeking permission to file the citations in this regard on Article 141,” Mehta said.
According to Article 141, the law as declared by the Supreme Court is binding on all courts of the country.
Justice Chandrachud said the Centre could place the citations and the court would examine them. “We do not want to make a prima facie determination. Sometimes there are exceptional circumstances, but let us await Monday,” the Chief Justice remarked. Sibal said the state had “a lot to say on the matter” but he was for now not making any argument as the matter had been listed for Monday. Singhvi said the single judge had unnecessarily dragged his client into the controversy and that Abhishek had never been given any opportunity to be heard in the matter.
“I (Abhishek) am gratuitously mentioned though I am unrelated to the case,” he said.
