The Calcutta High Court has convicted Trinamool Congress spokesperson Kunal Ghosh and several teacher recruitment protesters of criminal contempt, rejecting their apologies and issuing fines for actions that the court ruled undermined the integrity of the judiciary.
In an order issued on July 13, a special three-judge bench comprising Justices Arijit Banerjee, Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, and Rajarshi Bharadwaj declared that public demonstrations targeting judges and lawyers threaten the foundation of the legal system. The court emphasized that the right to free speech does not protect actions aimed at intimidating courts or eroding public trust in the administration of justice.
The court ordered Ghosh to pay a maximum fine of Rs 2,000, warning that failure to pay would result in three days of simple imprisonment. A more lenient fine of Rs 1,000 each was imposed on the protesting job candidates, with the court acknowledging their distress and financial strain caused by prolonged recruitment delays.
Demonstrations And Allegations Of Judicial Bias
The contempt proceedings originated from a protest on April 25, 2025, near the high court premises. The demonstration was organized by candidates involved in a long-standing dispute over appointments for physical education and work education teacher roles under the West Bengal School Service Commission (SSC). The candidates argued that their employment had been stalled by ongoing lawsuits.
During the demonstration, protesters allegedly blocked roads, prevented attorneys from entering their offices, shouted slogans against a sitting high court judge, and trampled on his photograph. Additionally, lawyers representing parties in the recruitment litigation were subjected to abusive comments.
The following day, Ghosh held a press conference where he criticized several lawyers involved in the SSC case. He questioned why a judge appeared influenced when certain advocates associated with the CPI(M) appeared before him, drawing a comparison to a former judge. The high court concluded that Ghosh’s remarks directly accused the judge of being partisan, thereby damaging the independence and impartiality of the court.
Legal Arguments And Apologies Rejected
Defense counsel for the protesters, Partha Sarathi Sengupta, offered an unconditional apology on behalf of his clients, arguing they did not mean to insult the court but were acting out of extreme frustration and financial insecurity due to the delayed appointments.
Similarly, Ghosh’s lawyer, Kalyan Bandopadhyay, presented an unconditional apology, stating that Ghosh was not present at the protest site on April 25, as he was participating in a media broadcast in Newtown, Kolkata. Bandopadhyay argued that Ghosh’s comments were directed at the political consistency of the lawyers rather than the authority of the court itself.
However, the special bench declined to accept either apology. The justices ruled that a valid apology must reflect genuine remorse and repentance rather than serving as a strategic legal defense. Representatives from the Bar Library Club and the Incorporated Law Society also urged the court to reject the submissions, arguing that attributing bias to judges damages public trust.
The court concluded that the demonstrators were educated individuals capable of understanding the legal boundaries of their actions. It ruled that their behavior went beyond permissible legal expression and constituted a direct attempt to pressure a sitting judge.
