Supreme Court judge Justice Aniruddha Bose on Tuesday recused himself from hearing appeals filed by West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee, Law Minister Moloy Ghatak and West Bengal government against the Calcutta High Court’s refusal to immediately consider their affidavits countering allegations about their role on the day of arrest of four TMC leaders by the CBI in the Narada sting tape case.
Following Justice Bose's decision, the Bench headed by Justice Hemant Gupta ordered the petitions to be placed before another Bench. Justice Bose was formerly a judge in the Calcutta High Court. His recusal comes within a few days of another former Calcutta HC judge, Justice Indira Banerjee , withdrawing from hearing a petition filed by the families of two BJP activists allegedly killed in the post-poll violence in West Bengal.
Adjourned to June 25
The Narada case, from which Justice Bose recused in the morning, came up for hearing again before a Bench of Justices Vineet Saran and Dinesh Maheshwari in the course of the day. However, this Bench, on the consent of the parties, adjourned the hearing to June 25. The parties assured that the case would be concluded on Friday itself.
The Saran Bench further requested the Calcutta High Court, which is seized of the Narada case, to not take up the matter for hearing before June 25. The High Court had scheduled a hearing on June 23. On June 18, a Vacation Bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian had requested the Calcutta High Court to defer its scheduled hearing of the Narada case to June 23.
On June 18, senior advocates Rakesh Dwivedi and Vikas Singh, for Mr. Ghatak and the State government, respectively, had said the affidavits were “essential” to the case and provided the truth about the events of May 17, the day of the arrest of the four TMC leaders.
A separate plea by Ms. Banerjee in the Supreme Court during the weekend contended that the CBI was trying to malign the State Ministers without any proof to substantiate its allegations against them in the Narada case. She said it was essential to allow her to file an affidavit to counter the agency's claims that she “terrorised” them by protesting outside their office.
