From the Bench to the BJP: Justice Abhijit Ganguly’s Controversial Transition

His tenure as a judge was marked by a singular focus: targeting the TMC, the ruling party in West Bengal.

Calcutta High Court Justice Abhijit Ganguly.

(Photo: PTI)

In the labyrinthine world of Indian politics, where alliances shift like sand dunes and ideologies collide, the recent decision by former Calcutta High Court Justice Abhijit Ganguly to join the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has sent ripples through the corridors of power. Justice Ganguly, once hailed as an anti-corruption crusader by some and criticized as a partisan judge by others, has now stepped into the political arena—a move that raises both eyebrows and questions. Let’s rewind.

Over the past few years, Justice Ganguly’s name has been etched in bold letters across vernacular newspapers and television screens. His tenure as a judge was marked by a singular focus: targeting the Trinamool Congress (TMC), the ruling party in West Bengal. Whether it was scrutinizing their policies, questioning their governance, or delivering verdicts that seemed to tilt against them, Justice Ganguly was unapologetically vocal. His supporters lauded him as a beacon of integrity, while his detractors accused him of bias.

But today, as he formally aligns himself with the BJP, the narrative takes an intriguing turn. Was Justice Ganguly’s previous stance truly impartial, as he claimed? Or did it harbour a subtle political agenda? The courtroom, once his stage, now witnesses a different drama—one where legal robes are exchanged for party colours, and the scales of justice tip toward electoral battles. Critics argue that Justice Ganguly’s transition undermines the judiciary’s neutrality.

They question whether his past judgments were influenced by personal convictions rather than legal principles.

After all, how can a judge who once wielded the gavel against the TMC now don the saffron scarf of the BJP without casting shadows on his legacy? The TMC, unsurprisingly, is crying foul. They point to his past pronouncements, dissecting each word for signs of bias. Was it justice or vendetta? Was it jurisprudence or political maneuvering? The lines blur, and the courtroom drama spills onto the political stage.

The intersection of Justice and Politics: Abhijit Ganguly’s Controversial Transition

The hallowed halls of India’s judiciary have long been revered as bastions of impartiality and justice. Yet, when a seasoned High Court judge like Abhijit Ganguly steps down from the bench, it sends shockwaves through the legal fraternity. Known for his unyielding stance against alleged corruption within the ruling TMC in West Bengal, Justice Ganguly’s decision to join the political fray raises pertinent questions about the delicate balance between judicial activism and political affiliation.

In the annals of Indian jurisprudence, several eminent judges have flirted with political futures. The names of Subba Rao, Baharul Islam, Krishna Iyer, K S Hegde, A M Thipsay, Vijay Bhauguna, Rajinder Sachar, Ranganath Misra, and Ranjan Gogoi resonate as examples. However, the crucial distinction lies in the visibility of bias during their tenures on the bench. Justice Ganguly’s journey diverges sharply—his vocal opposition to the TMC and subsequent alignment with the BJP cast shadows on the very autonomy of the judiciary he once upheld.

As the legal fraternity grapples with this seismic shift, the public watches with a mix of curiosity and concern. Can a judge who wielded the gavel against the TMC now don the saffron hues of the BJP without compromising the sanctity of justice?

The courtroom, once his theatre, now witnesses a different drama—one where legal robes are exchanged for party colours, and the scales of justice tip toward electoral battles. Critics argue that Justice Ganguly’s transition undermines the neutrality expected of the judiciary. His past pronouncements, dissected for signs of bias, fuel the debate. Was it justice or vendetta? Was it jurisprudence or political maneuvering? The lines blur, and the courtroom drama spills onto the political stage.

The TMC, predictably, cries foul. They question the authenticity of his judicial activism, alleging that it was a calculated move to strengthen the BJP. Justice Ganguly’s legacy hangs in the balance, and the public’s faith in the judiciary teeters. As West Bengal braces for the 2024 general elections, Justice Ganguly’s metamorphosis serves as a cautionary tale. The delicate dance between conviction and compromise plays out in the public eye. Is he a steadfast champion of principles or a recent convert to partisanship? The judgment doesn't solely unfold in the courtroom; it's also tested at the ballot box, examining both his personal integrity and the resilience of the judiciary.

Evasion of Scrutiny or Accountability?

In the intricate tapestry of Indian jurisprudence, Justice Abhijit Ganguly’s recent resignation from the Calcutta High Court reverberates with implications. His pointed critique of a fellow judge, coupled with allegations of political influence, now awaits the scrutiny of the Supreme Court—an institution that has already taken notice. The timing of his departure raises eyebrows: Is it an attempt to evade accountability or a preemptive move to shield himself from judicial scrutiny?

A year ago, Justice Ganguly’s candid interview with a vernacular news channel ignited controversy. In no uncertain terms, he expressed his intent to take action against Abhishek Banerjee, the All India General Secretary of the TMC and nephew of Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee. The Supreme Court promptly ordered the transfer of cases where Banerjee was involved, citing concerns about bias.

But Justice Ganguly’s interactions with the press didn’t end there. His regular appearances continued, with explicit criticism aimed at the ruling dispensation in West Bengal. The question looms large: Were these interactions a genuine pursuit of justice or a calculated display of political alignment?

The broader issue emerges: Can a sitting judge maintain such familiarity with the press? The autonomy of the judiciary hinges on impartiality, and Justice Ganguly’s actions blur the lines. Whether the TMC and Mamata Banerjee’s government are truly at fault remains to be proven, but the spectre of bias cannot be dismissed.

Across high courts and the Supreme Court, judges rarely engage in such friendly exchanges with journalists. Justice Ganguly’s parting words—“Most of you have my phone number”—underscore this unprecedented. Was he leveraging the press to share case details or advance a political agenda? A question that should come to the minds of any person. The autonomy of our judicial system undergoes a pivotal examination, extending beyond individual judges to the core principles of justice.

Implications and Challenges

Ganguly’s resignation opens a new chapter in West Bengal politics. For the ruling TMC, it’s more than an opportunity—it’s a lifeline. The party has consistently maintained that allegations against them, including the school job scam, were exaggerated and politically motivated. Now, with Ganguly’s move, they can bolster their narrative. His tenure as a judge saw numerous probes initiated by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) into TMC-related cases. Critics argue that this investigative zeal hints at bias. The TMC will campaign on the premise that Ganguly’s actions were driven by partisan motives.

Ganguly didn’t mince words. In a scathing attack, he referred to Mamata Banerjee’s nephew, Abhishek Banerjee, as an “armchair warrior.” The TMC, already reeling from public backlash over alleged scams that landed several leaders in jail, now finds renewed vigour. They’ll argue that Ganguly’s accusations were manufactured to tarnish the Mamata government’s image. The term “talpatar sepai” resonates—a soldier of the keyboard, not the battlefield.

For many in West Bengal, Ganguly’s political leap feels like a betrayal. Those who sought justice for TMC-related irregularities now grapple with disillusionment. They pinned their hopes on Ganguly’s impartial judgments, only to witness his transition into politics. The delicate dance between the judiciary and politics remains fraught with complexities. Is it possible for a judge to uphold impartiality while navigating the currents of partisan politics? The answer transcends courtroom proceedings, resonating within the collective consciousness of society.

It remains to be seen whether Abhijit Ganguly will find political success. Some believe he can be more effective in fighting corruption from within the political system, while others argue that all parties are susceptible to corruption. Even the BJP, which Ganguly is joining, faces accusations. This raises concerns about his motivations and potential conflicts of interest. His past judicial decisions, comments critical of the ruling party, and apparent dislike for specific leaders raise questions about his impartiality and could damage the public's trust in the judiciary.

[The author teaches journalism at St. Xavier's College (autonomous), Kolkata, and is a columnist (He tweets at @sayantan_gh.) This is an opinion piece and the views expressed above are the author’s own. The Quint neither endorses nor is responsible for them.]