Demise of Justice Sanat Kumar Chattopadhyaya condoled

To condole the sad demise of Justice Sanat Kumar Chattopadhyaya, former judge of the Patna High Court, an order was passed by the Chief Justice dated Patna High Court dated 2 August, 2024. The order did not disclose the date of his death and the cause of the death. Justice Chattopadhyaya's name features in the list of retired judges of the High Court on the website of the Court but it does not provide the date of his appointment and retirement as a judge of the High Court. It appears that he was a resident of Ranchi and was appointed as judge in early 1992. He must have retired prior to 2012.  

As recently, as March 22, 2024, the High Court's judgement of Justice Anjani Kumar Sharan referred to the "34,540 elementary teachers approved by the Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.K. Chattopadhyay (Retd.) Committee".  

It may be recalled that soon after retirement, Justice Chattopadhyay was given a similar task by the Supreme Court to take up and complete the finalization of the seniority list of teachers. The list submitted by Justice Chattopadhyay was accepted by the Supreme Court's bench of Chief Justice Altamas Kabir, Justices Anil R. Dave and Vikramjit Sen  and in terms of the recommendations made, 34,540 candidates were appointed in different primary schools in Bihar in Yashwant Singh Vs. State of Bihar (Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 26824 of 2012). 

But the matter did not end with the recommendations of Justice Chattopadhyay headed Committee. On account of the fact that some of the candidates, who had not appeared before Justice Chattopadhyay, came up with fresh applications in support of their cases and urged that there were various omissions from the final select list, the Supreme Court had to entertain the applications, particularly, on account of the directions, which the Court had given, in its judgment and order dated 13th October, 2011, that no Court would entertain any objection or applications with regard to the list of candidates, who had already been appointed, in terms of Court's earlier order.

During the hearing of these applications, special leave petitions and writ petitions in the Supreme Court, it emerged that most of the applicants were aggrieved by some defect or the other in the preparation of the select list, which occurred on account of the failure of the candidates to give their relevant particulars to the Committee headed by Justice Chattopadhyay. 

The Court noted that some discrepancies had crept in the final select list, the individual grievances contained various anomalies, which it is difficult for us to unravel. Consequently, the Court modified its order dated 13th October, 2011, and allow the applicants to approach the High Court for redressal of their grievances. The Supreme Court also directed that the applications, special leave petitions and writ petitions filed before us be treated as withdrawn, with liberty to the parties to approach the High Court individually or otherwise, for relief, if any, but without, in any way, affecting the appointments of those teachers who have already been appointed against the vacant 34,540 posts and are working. 

The Court was informed during the hearing that about 2413 posts out of the 34,540 posts were still left to be filled up. In its judgement dated July 18, 2013, the Court made it clear that none of the persons appointed out of the 34,540 vacancies should be disturbed in any way, but the question of filling up the balance vacancies may be taken into consideration, while disposing of the applications in question.

The demise of Justice Chattopadhyay reminds one of All India Independent Lawyer's Forum Vs. Hon'ble Sri S.K Chattopadhyay case for quashing the warrant of his appointment as judge of the High Court. It was filed by K. K. Jha Kamal, President of All India Independent Lawyers Forum, Ranchi Bihar. The challenge was made on the ground that it was illegal and contrary to the well established norms and principles laid down for the appointment of a High Court judge. It was submitted  the appointment is contrary to the procedures and principles of law enunciated by the Supreme Court of India in the case of Shri S. P. Gupta 1981 (Suppl.) SCC 85. The petition prayed for a direction to stop Justice Chattopadhyaya from performing the functions and duties of the High Court Judge in view of the illegal and unconstitutional appointment and the same being void ab initio, until the validity and constitutionality of his appointment is tested by this Court. Further, a writ of quo warranto has been sought for declaring the post held by him as vacant.. The case CWJC No. 790 of 1992 (R) was decided by Justices U.P. Singh and R.N Sahay of Patna High Court on March 13, 1992.

K.K. Jha, a practising Advocate of the High Court had raised the contention that Justice Chattopadhyaya did not satisfy the qualifications prescribed under Article 217(2) of the Constitution and it was contended, inter-alia, whether he is of sufficient matured age which is generally considered a good guide for a sombre approach in the Court of law, has he an unimpeachable integrity, a spotless character, is he a man of reliable habits and what is his equipment in law, does he subscribe to the social philosophy and values enshrined in the Constitution, does he suffer from any insurmountable aberration, does he disclose a capacity to persuade and be persuaded and has he a quick grasp, a smart intellect and a compassionate heart and whether he would have a team spirit. K.K. Jha drew the Court's attention to the fact  that Chief Justice of Patna High Court or the concerned Chief Justice/Chief Justices, who recommended his appointment had no materials either on record or had even personal knowledge based on objective considerations reached dispassionately by them and that they had acted purely on their subjective consideration. Further, while making such recommendation either the concerned Chief Justice/Chief Justices had not kept in mind the principles of law adjudicated by the Supreme Court in the S.P. Gupta case. He referred to the judgement in order to establish that the guidelines given by the Supreme Court in such matters have not been complied with. It was contended that the materials in pursuance of the aforesaid guideline should be disclosed to the people which formed the materials in pursuance of the aforesaid guideline and which weighed with them in recommending the name of S.K. Chattopadhyaya for the appointment as a High Court judge.

The Court's attention was drawn towards the integrity and professional honesty of S.K. Chattopadhyaya while he functioned as a Government Counsel and on the said basis it was contended that if the same would have been considered by the recommending authority then, perhaps, such recommendation would not have been made. K.K, Jha Kamal inferred that petitioner that the recommendation was made on misleading information supplied by respondent no. 9 regarding the professional calibre and competency of S.K. Chattopadhyaya and further that there was no effective consultation and/or scrutiny in the light of adverse materials brought on record of this case. The counsel led emphasis on the fact that the recommendations have not been made after full, effective, real, substantial and meaningful consultation based on full and proper materials placed before the constitutional functionaries as per the guidelines laid down in paragraph 767 of the judgement rendered in the case of Sri S.P Gupta v. Union of India. It was also asserted that respondent no. 8 the Chief Minister/Chief Ministers at the relevant point of time did not ascertain the qualities of S.K. Chattopadhyaya as Government Pleader before recommending his name or appointment as a High Court Judge according to the spirit of the Constitution. 

K. K. Jha placed reliance on the several unanimous resolutions passed by the said forum i.e All India Independent Lawyer's forum, which is an Organization of some lawyers of the Ranchi Bar as well as some other Bars which came into being on August 20, 1990. Several cause lists of the Court were filed annexed with the record of this case in order to show that the the Chief Justice had neither any chance or any occasion to see the performance of the S.K. Chattopadhyaya as a lawyer at Ranchi Bench of the Patna High Court and on the said basis was contended that the Chief Justice had no reason to recommend the name of S.K. Chattopadhyaya. 

These submissions were addressed by the Standing Counsel and the Slanding Counsel appearing for the Union of India but without any counter affidavit. The Court did not make any enquiry into the conduct of any Judge in exercise of its jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 

The Court observed: "We can also not investigate the facts by making fishing enquiries entering into the mind the recommending authority as to what was there in the mind of the constitutional functionary forming the subject matter of their opinion regarding suitability of a candidate proposed to be recommended for such appointment of a High Court Judge. We find that the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is based on speculation, there being no foundational facts before us to call for certain papers which the petitioner wanted to be called. The merit of a person for such appointment as a High Court Judge is based on several considerations and unless there is something tangible against such a person we cannot proceed on mere speculation for holding that respondent no. 1 was not able to be recommended for such appointment as a High Court Judge. In this view we dismiss this application summarily."

Few years after this case, Justice Chattopadhyaya became a subject in a case wherein High Court suo motu started proceedings for contempt against K.K. Jha Kamal Advocate of the Patna High Court practising at Ranchi Bench because K.K. Jha had made derogatory remarks against Justice Chattopadhyaya. Suo motu action was taken by a Bench of the High Court comprising of Justices S.K. Homchaudhuri and Gurusharan Sharma on September 1, 1995. In answer to show cause notice Jha made derogatory remarks now against Justice Homchaudhuri and when he repeated these remarks in the proceedings, the Court again took suo motu action against K.K. Jha for having committed contempt of Court.