Can't place yourself so high: SC raps top Bengal officers over Malda response

Justice Bagchi rebuked the Chief Secretary for inaccessibility, saying the Chief Justice must be reachable. The CJI ordered a written apology from top officials, calling it an administrative failure. The court noted hours of failed contact as judicial officers were held hostage, terming it evidence of bureaucratic chaos.

In Short

• CJI expressed displeasure on unavailability of Chief Secretary during crisis
• Court directed written apology from both officials to Chief Justice of High Court
• Police and administration accused of inaction despite hostage situation

The Supreme Court on Monday came down heavily on West Bengal’s Chief Secretary and Director General of Police, questioning their conduct and accessibility during the Malda incident, where judicial officers engaged in the ongoing SIR adjudication process were allegedly gheraoed for nine hours, forcing the Chief Justice of India to intervene late that night.

“What’s the problem, Mr Chief Secretary? You don’t even take the call of the Chief Justice?” the Chief Justice of India (CJI) asked, expressing strong displeasure over the response of the state’s top bureaucracy.

Appearing via video conference, the Chief Secretary said he was in Delhi for a meeting and had not received any calls from Kolkata. But the bench was unconvinced.

Justice Bagchi observed, “The calls would have come in the evening. It would have been extremely helpful to the Chief Justice and the High Court administration if you had shared your mobile numbers.”

When the Chief Secretary maintained that his number was available, Justice Bagchi responded sharply: “You cannot be so high that the Chief Justice has no access to you. Please lower yourselves so that even the Chief Justice can connect to you.”

The CJI went further, directing both the Chief Secretary and the DGP to issue a written apology to the Chief Justice of the High Court. “You must apologise it is the sheer failure of your civilian administration and the police authorities that we had to give powers to the judicial officers,” the court said.

The bench noted that despite “hours of efforts” to contact the Chief Secretary, there was no response, even as seven judicial officers were held hostage during the incident. “This is the way bureaucracy works! In this state there is chaos” the CJI remarked.

Highlighting the gravity of the situation, the CJI said the incident began around 3:30 pm but he was informed only at 11:30 pm. "Till then, what all could have happened? Thousands of people were allowed to assemble and keep assembling,” he said.

Justice Bagchi added that it took the intervention of the Chief Justice of India to prevent a more serious outcome.

The court also pulled up the police response on the ground. Referring to submissions that the district magistrate and superintendent of police were present, Justice Bagchi said, “They were just watching when the registry contacted the SP, he said what can I do, there are women present -- if we act, we will be killing women.”

While refraining from immediate punitive action, the court said it would await a report from the Chief Justice of Calcutta High Court. “Subject to the report we don’t propose any action against these officers,” the CJI said, adding that both officials must reflect on their responsibilities.

The Supreme Court directed the Chief Secretary, DGP and the entire state administration to extend full cooperation to the Chief Justice until the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) process and tribunal work are completed.

Earlier, the West Bengal government filed a detailed affidavit stating that two persons -- Shahjahan Qadri and Maftul Islam -- had been arrested for allegedly instigating threats against judicial officers. The court was informed that they are currently in police custody and would be handed over to the NIA for interrogation.

The bench also directed investigating agencies to identify those who instigated the gherao, observing that the gathering was “not spontaneous” but “deep-rooted and certainly instigated.” “Find out who is responsible we want to take this to a logical conclusion,” the court said.

- Ends