Calcutta HC Refuses to Take Suo Moto Contempt Action Against Abhishek Banerjee

The Calcutta High Court recently declined to take suo moto cognizance of alleged inflammatory remarks made by the national general secretary of the All India Trinamool Congress (AITMC), Abhishek Banerjee against the judiciary.

The bench, comprising Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam and Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharya, asked Senior Advocate Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharya, who had urgently mentioned the matter, to approach the larger bench already handling a contempt case related to agitation and circulation of defamatory posters against Justice Rajasekhar Mantha.

Bhattacharya urged the Court to initiate immediate suo moto contempt action to uphold its dignity and majesty, which he believed were being “dragged into the dirt.”

He stated, “One person (Banerjee) who engaged in ‘postering’ against a particular judge (Justice Rajasekhar Mantha) is now on record, claiming that High Court is giving protection to antisocial elements. He has also said that all [Poll violence] killings are because of High Court…his utterances are affecting the majesty of this court. I wouldn’t have moved this, but a professor of national eminence and former Advocate General called me and requested to bring this to light. Mafia leaders cannot shake the confidence of common people against the High Court. Milord, these are unscathing, scandalous remarks against the High Court. This will shake the conscience of the court.”

Senior counsel Sakya Sen also supported Bhattacharya’s submissions, stating that Banerjee had been previously cautioned against making colored remarks about the judiciary.

He said, “This person was cautioned before by a division bench, same person…similar kind of remark. Just, last time was a general remark, this time the entire High Court [has been insulted]…and he is aware of the consequences. He has dared the Court to issue contempt, says the Court can issue contempt, he will face it.”

However, the Bench asked why the informants couldn’t file a conventional contempt application. Bhattacharya explained that in such a case, the consent of the Advocate General would be required.

The bench then made an oral remark, saying, “Ultimately if criminal contempt has to be initiated, then necessary directions have to be issued to the AG…Place this along with the other contempt matters which are pending, in the form of a petition, placing on record the facts which you want to [plead].”