KOLKATA: Former Calcutta HC judge Abhijit Gangopadhyay on Wednesday filed a petition against Election Commission in HC, seeking a central agency probe into why the poll panel made “wholly unwarranted and highly objectionable comments” against him with a “prejudiced mind.”
BJP’s Tamluk candidate, who had ordered multiple central agency investigations during his tenure as a judge, stepped into HC corridors to sign his vakalatnama as a litigant and then headed straight back to Moyna and Nandigram to resume campaigning after the EC-mandated bar.
“I had gone to Calcutta HC to file a petition. I had some prior engagements,” Gangopadhyay told TOI.
In his petition, Gangopadhyay claimed that EC never gave him a hearing or considered his appeal to recall or reconsider its order, violating the principles of natural justice. He argued that some of the poll panel’s statements would expose him to civil litigation.
EC, while censuring Gangopadhyay, said that he “brought damage and disrepute to Bengal that has a distinguished tradition of respect for women”, adding that he did not “remotely deserve any benefit of doubt”, given his “educational and professional background.” Gangopadhyay asserted that he ought to have been heard before such observations were made.
Gangopadhyay in his petition claimed that his fundamental right of “reputation and to live with reasonable human dignity” had been “perpetually infringed”. He said it was within his rights “to take appropriate action against the commission for maligning and defaming” him. Gangopadhyay then demanded a “thorough probe” be conducted by an impartial Central investigating agency.
BJP’s Tamluk candidate, who had ordered multiple central agency investigations during his tenure as a judge, stepped into HC corridors to sign his vakalatnama as a litigant and then headed straight back to Moyna and Nandigram to resume campaigning after the EC-mandated bar.
“I had gone to Calcutta HC to file a petition. I had some prior engagements,” Gangopadhyay told TOI.
In his petition, Gangopadhyay claimed that EC never gave him a hearing or considered his appeal to recall or reconsider its order, violating the principles of natural justice. He argued that some of the poll panel’s statements would expose him to civil litigation.
EC, while censuring Gangopadhyay, said that he “brought damage and disrepute to Bengal that has a distinguished tradition of respect for women”, adding that he did not “remotely deserve any benefit of doubt”, given his “educational and professional background.” Gangopadhyay asserted that he ought to have been heard before such observations were made.
Gangopadhyay in his petition claimed that his fundamental right of “reputation and to live with reasonable human dignity” had been “perpetually infringed”. He said it was within his rights “to take appropriate action against the commission for maligning and defaming” him. Gangopadhyay then demanded a “thorough probe” be conducted by an impartial Central investigating agency.
