Suvendu Adhikari defeated Mamata Banerjee from Nandigram constituency by 1,956 votes
A new bench will take up on Wednesday West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee's election petition before the Calcutta High Court challenging BJP leader Suvendu Adhikari's victory from the Nandigram constituency in the assembly elections.
The case was reassigned to the bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar by Acting Chief Justice Rajesh Bindal after Justice Kausik Chanda recused from hearing the Trinamool Congress supremo's election petition.
The matter has been listed for hearing at 2.30 pm on Wednesday.
Mr Adhikari defeated Ms Banerjee from the Nandigram constituency by 1,956 votes in the assembly election held earlier in the year.
Justice Kausik Chanda had on July 7 recused from hearing the Trinamool Congress supremo's petition challenging the election of Mr Adhikari from Nandigram, and imposed a cost of Rs five lakh on her for the manner in which the recusal was sought.
Releasing the election petition of Ms Banerjee on an application by her for recusal expressing apprehension of bias against her by his bench, Justice Chanda had said that he was doing so in order to thwart at the outset attempts by trouble-mongers to keep the controversy alive.
Ms Banerjee's lawyers had suggested that Justice Chanda should recuse himself from the case since he was associated with the legal cell of the BJP before his elevation as a Judge and had appeared in a number of cases on behalf of the said party before the high court as a lawyer.
Her lawyer had suggested during his submissions before the court that there is a conflict of interest since Justice Chanda had a close relationship with the BJP and the petitioner has challenged the election of a BJP candidate.
In its order, the court had said that it is preposterous to suggest that a judge having a past association with a political party as a lawyer should not receive a case involving the said political party or any of its members.
Justice Chanda had noted that like any other citizen of the country, a judge also exercises his voting rights in favour of a political party, but he lays aside his individual predilection while deciding a case.