On December 21, the Calcutta High Court Bar Association reversed its decision to abstain from attending Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay’s court after the judge visited the association’s office and engaged in discussions with the present lawyers, as informed by its secretary Biswabrata Basu Mallik.
Earlier, the association had communicated to Chief Justice T S Sivagnanam, expressing that its members would refrain from participating in Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay’s bench starting from Tuesday.
This decision was based on the claim that a lawyer had been “mistreated” by the judge and placed in civil custody for contempt of court during a hearing.
As per the high court website’s listing of matters, Justice Gangopadhyay’s bench did not convene on both Tuesday and Wednesday.
On Thursday, during the lunch recess, Justice Gangopadhyay visited the Bar association’s room on the high court premises and engaged in dialogue with the lawyers present, including the concerned lawyer, Prosenjit Mukherjee, and other advocate members of the Bar, according to Mallik’s statement to reporters.
Mallik asserted that the judge, acknowledging the upcoming new year, conveyed a message of letting go of past grievances and embracing a fresh start.
In light of this candid expression, the general body of the Bar decided to resume attending his court from the afternoon session onward.
Responding to a letter from lawyer Prosenjit Mukherjee, who claimed to have been sent to civil custody by Justice Gangopadhyay for contempt of court, a division bench of the high court had granted an interim stay on the order on Monday.
The division bench noted that the single judge’s order had not yet been uploaded on the official server.
Mukherjee had informed the division bench that he was released later in the day from the custody under the Sheriff’s authority but expressed concerns that the three-day civil imprisonment order, if implemented, might subject him to custody again.
In a letter to the chief justice on Monday, Mallik had communicated that the majority of its members had resolved not to attend Justice Gangopadhyay’s court in light of the incident.
