NEW DELHI:
In a significant development, the Supreme Court of India refused to entertain a petition filed by a sitting judge of the Calcutta High Court, who is under investigation in connection with a large cash recovery case. The bench termed the plea as “not worth entertaining”, marking a major setback for the judge seeking relief from the ongoing inquiry.
The case pertains to the recovery of around ₹3 crore in cash from the residence of a person allegedly linked to Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay. The seizure prompted an investigation by central agencies, which led to a wider probe into allegations of corruption and misconduct.
A bench led by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud declined to interfere at this stage and observed that the investigation must follow its due course. “The petition is not worth entertaining. The law will take its own course,” the Chief Justice stated during the brief hearing.
The judge had approached the apex court challenging the probe against him and sought protection from any coercive action, alleging that the investigation was politically motivated and intended to tarnish his reputation. The plea also claimed procedural irregularities in the registration of the case and subsequent raids.
However, the Supreme Court maintained that such matters must be dealt with at the appropriate forum and refused to pass any interim order. “Let the competent authorities examine the material on record. The judiciary must hold itself to the highest standards,” the court remarked.
Legal experts pointed out that the Supreme Court's decision to reject the plea does not establish guilt; rather, it permits the investigation to continue unchecked. The decision upholds the judiciary's stance that, in the event of credible allegations, even sitting judges are subject to investigation.
The judge has not yet been formally named as an accused by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), which is currently investigating the case. Sources, however, claim that in order to determine the nature of the transactions, financial trails and statements are being examined.
Various quarters have responded sharply to the controversy; some have called for caution to preserve judicial integrity, while others have emphasized the necessity of accountability and transparency in the higher judiciary. There have also been calls for the creation of a more stringent system to deal with cases involving judges without sacrificing their independence or impartiality.
It is anticipated that the Supreme Court's ruling will influence future decisions in cases of this nature, particularly when the defendants have constitutional views. Investigations into the matter are still ongoing, and more information is anticipated.
The Supreme Court made it clear that it intended to permit the law to proceed without judicial intervention at this preliminary hearing, so the investigation against the Calcutta High Court judge will continue unhindered.
