Legal fraternity divided on Abhijit Gangopapdhyay: "Judges make poor politicians," says one retired Justice; advocate cites 'precedent'

New Delhi [India], March 6 (ANI): Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay's decision to resign as a judge of the Calcutta High Court and join politics has generated a political face-off between the BJP and the Trinamool Congress.
While some experts from the legal fraternity have cautioned that it could set an unhealthy precedent, others opine that the former Judge with his wealth of experience could contribute positively in state politics.
Retired Delhi High Court judge, Justice RS Sodhi said the "personal decision" of Justice Gangopadhyay might be good for him but may not be so good for the institution itself.
"The desire or the decision of anybody to join politics is absolutely a personal decision and therefore it cannot be commented on. However, a judge who is sitting and has such huge tendencies to be politically active must not continue to be a judge and/or should not have become a judge in the very first place" Justice Sodhi said.
According to Justice Sodhi, a judge joining politics sends out "a very wrong signal" because, many judgments decisions made by him when he was a sitting judge can become tainted, or "at least they're not acceptable as being fair."
Senior Advocate Vikas Singh has termed the development in which a Judge has sought a political future as a "very unhealthy trend."
"This is a classic case where a judge is using his position as a judge to further his political career and then making a foray because whatever he has done as a judge will favour a political party. So I think this is a very, very unhealthy trend. This will give some kind of encouragement to other judges also to think in this line because when you become a judge, you have decided to do a different kind of service to the nation and you can't just use your office as a judge to further your political career. So I think this is not something which is a very healthy sign," the senior advocate said.
Speaking on the independence of the judiciary, Senior Advocate Karuna Nundy opined that such decisions will bring about an imbalance in the power separation of Indian democracy.
"The independence of the judiciary is based on one of the deepest values of India and Indian democracy and that is the separation of powers," she said.
Explaining the accountability of the pillars of democracy, she said, "The separation of governmental power, parliament's power--where the politicians are elected--and judicial power are meant to balance each other and hold each other to account."
Nundy opined, "Now if the three get mixed up,, then there is a massive problem. The government is the biggest litigant before our courts, so the incentive for judges to make decisions in favour of the government of the day jumps exponentially if they are looking to join as politicians in the government. Similarly, less serious, problems arise if they seek to join other parties."
Justice Sodhi further said that a sitting judge should be very, very cautious about adventurism and that he would have felt more comfortable had the judge "retired, cooled off a little and then decided to do whatever he likes."
"Judges joining politics, whether they get any significant change, is again dependent upon his quality to handle the public and also to be rational in his approach to the ground realities. If that is possible, then maybe he can bring something around. But generally, I've seen that judges make poor politicians," Justice Sodhi said.
Traditionally, judges in India are expected to maintain a distance from politics and Justice Gangopadhyay's resignation has reignited the debate about judges entering politics in the country.
Baharul Islam, a former Supreme Court judge, was one of the few judges who joined politics. He resigned sometime before his retirement and contested the 1983 Lok Sabha polls as a Congress candidate from Barpeta in Assam. He was later elected to the Rajya Sabha.
Calcutta High Court advocate Priti Kar, however, said that Justice Ganguly's decision to transition from the judiciary to politics is not unprecedented.
"We have witnessed individuals making similar moves, including during congressional regimes. It's a complex matter with perspectives varying based on one's professional background and personal beliefs. As a lawyer, the analysis might be nuanced, but as a common citizen, especially from West Bengal, there's a particular sentiment," Advocate Kar said.
Advocate Kar also felt that Justice Gangopahdyay with his wealth of experience would contribute positively for the state.
"At its core, as a citizen of West Bengal, one would welcome Justice Ganguly's decision. His outspoken nature and advocacy for the underprivileged resonate deeply with the people. His shift to politics presents an opportunity for him to serve the community more presently," Kar said.
"Justice Ganguly's track record suggests a commitment to social justice and the welfare of marginalized groups. His entry into politics holds promise for furthering these causes and bringing about tangible change. His voice, experience, and principled stance could potentially shape policies and agendas that prioritize the welfare of the people", she further said.
Citing Montesquieu's idea of the Seperation of Powers which prevents absolute power and creates accountability, young advocate Arushi Dhawan said, "this idea was adopted into our Constitution by BR Ambedkar wherein the Legislative role or Law makers remain seperate from the role of the Judiciary which checks and balances."
Advocate Dhawan also mentioned that the judge as a constitutional function passed several orders and judgements adjudicating between the state and another aggrieved entity, and said, "We observe that sitting Judges do not even adjudicate for clients they once represented as lawyers, then can it be considered reputable to change an office from one Constitutional role to another ?
"While the Constitution has no provision preventing an individual from changing office from one role to another, a Judge is a significant Judicial post that passes several orders/judgements adjudicating between the state and another aggrieved entity and such orders/judgements are immune as they are dispensing a constitutional function," the advocate said.
On Tuesday Justice Gangopadhyay had confirmed that he would be joining the Bharatiya Janta Party and the decision on him contesting the Lok Sabha Polls was a decision the party would take. (ANI)