“Judges should have no business in giving interviews on TV on matters pending in the court”: CJI

Last Updated on September 14, 2023 by Administrator

Issue: – The supreme court was hearing a plea challenging the order by Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyaya of the Calcutta HC in which he had directed the CBI and the ED to interrogate the national general secretary of TMC, Abhishek Banerjee, and during the pendency of which Justice Gangopadhyaya gave an interview on the TV.

Facts:- The order was passed by Justice Gangopadhyaya in a matter in which allegedly a corruption case had taken place during the school recruitments. With the order, Justice Gangopadhayaya had given direction to CBI and ED to interrogate Kuntal Ghosh who is a suspended TMC leader in custody, and TMC National General Secretary, Abhishek Banerjee, due to which a stay order was also made on the actions of Abhishek Bannerjee.

Arguments: – Senior Advocate, Abhishek Manu Singhvi, who has been appearing on behalf of Abhishek Banerjee, requested the court to take into consideration the interview that has been given by Justice Abhijit Gnagopadhyaya with BP Ananda, which he had given statements against Abhishek Banerjee. He said this practice is not acceptable.

Reasoning: – CJI DY chandrachud after reading the statement went into the details of the matter and said that since the annexure of the petitioner enclosed the statement made by Justice Gangopadhyay, the registrar general of the Calcutta HC was directed to clarify from the judge whether he was interviewed by Mr. Suman De and regarding the same the affidavit must be filed by the registrar general on or before Friday as the matter will be listed on Friday.

CJI remarked that judges should have no business in giving interviews on the matters that are in pendency and if he has made the statements against Abhishek Bannerjee, then he will have no right to remain a part of the proceedings.

Judgment: – After the statement of Justice Gangopadhyaya was read by the division bench comprising CJI D.Y. Chandrachud and Justice P.S. Narasimha, it was ordered that clarification must be given, whether the interview took place or not  

Case Title: – Abhishek Bannerjee v. Soumen Nandy Diary No. 15883/2023

Written by: Shianjany Pradhan