25.1 C
Saturday, July 24, 2021

New Excessive Court docket Bench To Hear Mamata Banerjee’s Election Petition Tomorrow

- Advertisement -

Suvendu Adhikari defeated Mamata Banerjee from Nandigram constituency by 1,956 votes


A brand new bench will take up on Wednesday West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee’s election petition earlier than the Calcutta Excessive Court docket difficult BJP chief Suvendu Adhikari’s victory from the Nandigram constituency within the meeting elections.

The case was reassigned to the bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar by Appearing Chief Justice Rajesh Bindal after Justice Kausik Chanda recused from listening to the Trinamool Congress supremo’s election petition.

The matter has been listed for listening to at 2.30 pm on Wednesday.

Mr Adhikari defeated Ms Banerjee from the Nandigram constituency by 1,956 votes within the meeting election held earlier within the yr.

Justice Kausik Chanda had on July 7 recused from listening to the Trinamool Congress supremo’s petition difficult the election of Mr Adhikari from Nandigram, and imposed a value of Rs 5 lakh on her for the way by which the recusal was sought.

- Advertisement -

Releasing the election petition of Ms Banerjee on an software by her for recusal expressing apprehension of bias towards her by his bench, Justice Chanda had stated that he was doing so with a view to thwart on the outset makes an attempt by trouble-mongers to maintain the controversy alive.

Ms Banerjee’s attorneys had instructed that Justice Chanda ought to recuse himself from the case since he was related to the authorized cell of the BJP earlier than his elevation as a Choose and had appeared in plenty of instances on behalf of the stated get together earlier than the excessive courtroom as a lawyer.

Her lawyer had instructed throughout his submissions earlier than the courtroom that there’s a battle of curiosity since Justice Chanda had an in depth relationship with the BJP and the petitioner has challenged the election of a BJP candidate.

In its order, the courtroom had stated that it’s preposterous to recommend {that a} decide having a previous affiliation with a political get together as a lawyer mustn’t obtain a case involving the stated political get together or any of its members.

Justice Chanda had famous that like some other citizen of the nation, a decide additionally workouts his voting rights in favour of a political get together, however he lays apart his particular person predilection whereas deciding a case. 

Source link

- Advertisement -

Related Articles

Stay Connected

- Advertisement -

Latest Articles