According to Justice Chanda, a choose, like every other individual, workout routines his proper to vote and has political preferences. A choose’s earlier relationship with a political determine can’t be construed as proof of prejudice. Accepting such a petition will lead to bench looking.
He stated, “I have no personal inclination to hear out petitioner’s case. I have no hesitation in taking up this case either. It is my constitutional duty to hear out a case assigned to me by the Chief Justice.”
Justice Chanda had reportedly requested Banerjee’s lawyer Abhishek Manu Singhvi why the recusal was not talked about earlier in court docket. He stated he didn’t deem it match.
He additional added, “A deliberate and absolute attempt was made to affect my decision even before the case was heard. If a person appears for a political party, it is uncommon but he lays aside his bias while hearing a case. It is preposterous to suggest that a judge who has an association with a political party for a case. A judge cannot be seen to be bias because to the litigant’s view.”
Justice Chanda additionally famous {that a} plea was made earlier than the Chief Justice (CJ) of the Calcutta High Court, Rajesh Bindal looking for reassignment of Banerjee’s case to another choose.
The superb must be deposited inside two weeks and the cash can be offered to the households of attorneys who’ve succumbed to COVID-19, the Court stated.
Mamata Banerjee accused former TMC confidante Suvendu Adhikary of corruption and violation of Section 123 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Adhikary had reportedly beat the TMC chief by lower than 2000 votes within the not too long ago carried out meeting elections. Mamata Banerjee alleged discrepancies of counting in Nandigram as she was defeated by 1,956 votes. The Returning Officer turned down her request of recounting the votes.
(With Inputs From Manogya Loiwal)
