Views : Can anybody prosecute a judge by the provision of the new law with retrospective effect?
If so ,thousands of case can be filed by this provision. The question is genuine .
Times of India
If so ,thousands of case can be filed by this provision. The question is genuine .
Law intern's sexual assault case: Somnath Chatterjee calls Supreme Court panel 'overzealous'
My Saved articles
RELATED
KOLKATA: Former Lok Sabha speaker Somnath Chatterjee on Tuesday questioned the authority of the Supreme Court appointed panel to 'get into' allegations against Justice Asok Kumar Ganguly. He also termed it as an act of 'overzealousness'.
After a programme organized by West Bengal Human Rights Commission, Chatterjee said, "Under what authority they (the panel) got into it and forthwith decided not to touch any such matter. Then why was this exception made?"
Critical on the formation of the panel, Chatterjee said, "I will not say it's malafide, but I would say it's overzealousness. With all due respects to learned judges ... I don't know ... if they could clear it to nation, it would be better."
Chatterjee didn't lend his voice to growing clamour seeking Justice Ganguly's resignation. He said, "I have faith in him. He will decide what to do. It is not easy to accuse a person. Let it be proved first. If (he) is proven guilty, nation will punish (him)." When asked if has seen any political motive behind allegations, said, "I don't have an investigating agency ... but I have doubts."
Senior criminal lawyer Milon Mukherjee too resonated Chatterjee. "My questions are basic. Why did tSupreme Court constitute a probe panel in tfirst place? Was Justice Ganguly a sitting Supreme Court judge when alleged offence took place? Did talleged offence take place within precincts of Supreme Court? Was complainant an employee of Supreme Court? If not then, how do Vishaka judgment guidelines factor in this case? Does anyone understand damage it has done?" asked while giving an interview to ToI.
Mukherjee said, "Former Chief Justice of India P N Bhagwati said, taking inspiration from an American judge, that "we are right because we are final. We are not final, because we are right." The honourable Supreme Court panel committee by forming an opinion and making public a report - albeit in its administrative capacity - has already dealt a devastating blow in the case. Its recommendations will always form the bulwark of allegations, investigations (if any) and final reports. It has already been quoted. Will anybody dare challenge whatever the Supreme Court has said? Can there ever be a contrary view?" asked.
He further asked, "Will an impressionable trial magistrate decide tcase purely on merits and not what has been said about it by the highest court of the land?"
Mukherjee raised another point. "Thealleged incident took place in December 24, 2012. If the Supreme Court findings are to be accepted then the charge which could be framed against Justice Ganguly could at the most be under section 354A IPC. This section has come into existence after new amendments were introduced in Indian Penal Code with effect from February 3, 2013. This penalizes unwelcome behaviour of sexual nature, whether verbal or physical. Legalities can be quirky at time. So, when Justice Ganguly actually committed the alleged offence, it wasn't a crime. He can't be put to trial on a law which came into force much later. This is against the basic principle as laid down in Article 20 (sub article 1) of the Constitution of India."
Mukherjee adds a footnote, "Nothing till now proves that Justice Ganguly has actually committed an offence punishable by law. In forming opinions, vilifying him, we are denying him justice."
Senior criminal lawyer Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharya questioned the hurry to brand Justice Ganguly guilty. "To my mind, the complainant herself has lodged no such complaint. Anything else will not stand up in any court of law," said. Lawyer Rabi Shankar Chatterjee said the state's resignation demand was a fallout of the successive WBHRC recommendations against it.
After a programme organized by West Bengal Human Rights Commission, Chatterjee said, "Under what authority they (the panel) got into it and forthwith decided not to touch any such matter. Then why was this exception made?"
Critical on the formation of the panel, Chatterjee said, "I will not say it's malafide, but I would say it's overzealousness. With all due respects to learned judges ... I don't know ... if they could clear it to nation, it would be better."
Chatterjee didn't lend his voice to growing clamour seeking Justice Ganguly's resignation. He said, "I have faith in him. He will decide what to do. It is not easy to accuse a person. Let it be proved first. If (he) is proven guilty, nation will punish (him)." When asked if has seen any political motive behind allegations, said, "I don't have an investigating agency ... but I have doubts."
Senior criminal lawyer Milon Mukherjee too resonated Chatterjee. "My questions are basic. Why did tSupreme Court constitute a probe panel in tfirst place? Was Justice Ganguly a sitting Supreme Court judge when alleged offence took place? Did talleged offence take place within precincts of Supreme Court? Was complainant an employee of Supreme Court? If not then, how do Vishaka judgment guidelines factor in this case? Does anyone understand damage it has done?" asked while giving an interview to ToI.
Mukherjee said, "Former Chief Justice of India P N Bhagwati said, taking inspiration from an American judge, that "we are right because we are final. We are not final, because we are right." The honourable Supreme Court panel committee by forming an opinion and making public a report - albeit in its administrative capacity - has already dealt a devastating blow in the case. Its recommendations will always form the bulwark of allegations, investigations (if any) and final reports. It has already been quoted. Will anybody dare challenge whatever the Supreme Court has said? Can there ever be a contrary view?" asked.
He further asked, "Will an impressionable trial magistrate decide tcase purely on merits and not what has been said about it by the highest court of the land?"
Mukherjee raised another point. "Thealleged incident took place in December 24, 2012. If the Supreme Court findings are to be accepted then the charge which could be framed against Justice Ganguly could at the most be under section 354A IPC. This section has come into existence after new amendments were introduced in Indian Penal Code with effect from February 3, 2013. This penalizes unwelcome behaviour of sexual nature, whether verbal or physical. Legalities can be quirky at time. So, when Justice Ganguly actually committed the alleged offence, it wasn't a crime. He can't be put to trial on a law which came into force much later. This is against the basic principle as laid down in Article 20 (sub article 1) of the Constitution of India."
Mukherjee adds a footnote, "Nothing till now proves that Justice Ganguly has actually committed an offence punishable by law. In forming opinions, vilifying him, we are denying him justice."
Senior criminal lawyer Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharya questioned the hurry to brand Justice Ganguly guilty. "To my mind, the complainant herself has lodged no such complaint. Anything else will not stand up in any court of law," said. Lawyer Rabi Shankar Chatterjee said the state's resignation demand was a fallout of the successive WBHRC recommendations against it.
