The Supreme Court on Monday transferred all proceedings concerning the handling of a case related to a caste certificate scam from the Calcutta High Court to itself. The rift between two sitting judges of the High Court, Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay and Justice Soumen Sen, prompted the apex court's intervention to maintain the integrity of judicial proceedings.

The genesis of the dispute lies in a petition filed before the Calcutta High Court alleging the issuance of fake caste certificates in West Bengal. Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay, presiding over the case, ordered a CBI inquiry despite the absence of such a plea in the petition. This unilateral decision was swiftly challenged by a division bench led by Justice Soumen Sen, which stayed Justice Gangopadhyay's order.

However, Justice Gangopadhyay proceeded to authorize the handover of case papers to the CBI on the same day, seemingly disregarding the division bench's stay order. Furthermore, in a subsequent order issued on January 25, Justice Gangopadhyay questioned the validity of the division bench's judgment and made disparaging remarks against Justice Sen, accusing him of bias.

The Supreme Court's intervention began on January 26, when it took suo motu cognizance of the matter. In an extraordinary Saturday hearing, the Court swiftly intervened, staying the proceedings before the single bench and the division bench.

Today a 5-judge bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, along with Justices Sanjiv Khanna, BR Gavai, Surya Kant, and Aniruddha Bose, transferred all proceedings related to the case from the Calcutta High Court to the Supreme Court. This move aims to ensure impartial adjudication and uphold the dignity of the judiciary.

During the proceedings, the Supreme Court refrained from passing judgment on the actions of the High Court judges, recognizing the sensitivity of the matter and its potential impact on the judiciary's reputation. Instead, the focus remained on transferring the case to the apex court for further deliberation.

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing the State of West Bengal, expressed concerns about the single judge's repeated defiance of higher bench orders, suggesting a pattern that could persist in the future. Additionally, the State presented evidence alleging the judge's involvement in public meetings and rallies, raising further questions about impartiality and judicial conduct.

Meanwhile, Senior Advocate Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing TMC MP Abhishek Banerjee, drew attention to past instances where the judiciary had addressed similar issues of judicial impropriety. However, Chief Justice Chandrachud cautioned against casting aspersions on the judge, emphasizing the importance of maintaining the dignity and independence of the judiciary.

The case has also seen involvement from various stakeholders, including a federation of SC/ST students, indicating the broader implications of the alleged irregularities in medical admissions. Senior Advocate KTS Tulsi advocated for the interests of students belonging to reserved categories.

In the midst of legal wrangling, Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta highlighted procedural irregularities in the handling of the case by the division bench, further complicating the matter.

It's noteworthy that this isn't the first instance of controversy involving Justice Gangopadhyay. His past actions, including giving interviews to media outlets while cases related to prominent politicians were pending before him, have drawn criticism and led to interventions by the Supreme Court to maintain judicial propriety.

Case: In Re: Orders of Calcutta High Court dated 24.01.2024 and 25.01.2024 and Ancillary Issues.