IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Special Jurisdiction Appellate Side Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Debangsu Basak And The Hon’ble Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi CPAN 621 of 2025 Baishakhi Bhattacharyya (Chatterjee) & Ors.

Vs.

Shri Binod Kumar, The Principal Secretary, Department of School Education & Ors.

In WPA 30649 of 2016 Baisakhi Bhattacharyya (Chatterjee) & Ors.

Vs.

The State of West Bengal & Ors.

For the Petitioners : Mr. Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharyya, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Sudipta Dasgupta, Adv.

Mr. Bikram Banerjee, Adv.

Mr. Arka Nandi, Adv.

Mr. Sagar Dey, Adv.

Mr. Sandwip Sutradhar, Adv.

Mr. Baibhav Roy, Adv.

For the Alleged : Mr. Partha Sarathi Sengupta, Sr. Adv.

Contemnor no. 1 Mr. Jishnu Chowdhury, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Sirsanya Bandopadhyay, Sr. Standing Counsel Mr. Debanjan Mandal, Adv. Mr. Sandip Dasgupta, Adv. Ms. Mahima Cholera, Adv.

For the alleged : Mr. Kalyan Bandyopadhyay, Sr. Adv.

Contemnor no. 2 Mr. Debanjan Mandal, Adv.

Mr. Sandip Dasgupta, Adv. Ms. Mahima Cholera, Adv.

For the alleged : Mr. Saptangsu Basu, Sr. Adv. Contemnor no. 3 Dr. Sutanu Kumar Patra, Adv.

Mr. Supriya Dubey, Adv.

For the alleged : Ms. Koyeli Bhattacharyya, Adv.

Contemnor no. 4 Mr. Bibek Dutta, Adv.

Ms. Keya Panja, Adv.

subha karmakar Digitaly signed by subha karmakar Date: 2025.05.07 11:05:16 +05'30'

For the CBI : Mr. Dhiraj Trivedi, DSGI Hearing Concluded on : May 01, 2025 Judgement on : May 07, 2025 DEBANGSU BASAK, J.:-

1. Petitioners have complained of violation of the judgment and order dated April 22, 2024 passed by us in WPA

30649 of 2016 and in other writ petitions and appeals.

2. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners has submitted that, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has affirmed the judgement and order dated April 22, 2024 on April 3, 2025 save and except one of the directions contained in the judgment and order dated April 22, 2024 being modified. He has pointed out that, one of the directions contained in the judgement and order dated April 22, 2024 was set aside by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, on April 8, 2025. All other directions have been affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. He has submitted that, petitioners are seeking implementation of such directions contained in the judgment and order dated April 22, 2024 which have not been set aside or modified by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in this contempt petition.

3. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the alleged contemnor no. 1 has raised the issue of maintainability of the contempt petition before this Hon’ble Court, at the threshold.

He has submitted that, since, Special Leave Petitions were filed against the judgment and order dated April 22, 2024 and since such Special Leave Petitions were admitted and the Hon’ble Supreme Court disposed of the appeals directed against the judgment and order dated April 22, 2024, by a judgment and order dated April 3, 2025, the judgment and order dated April 22, 2024 of the High Court has merged with the judgment and order dated April 3, 2025 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Consequently, the Court which has jurisdiction to consider an application for contempt of the judgment and order dated April 3, 2025, is the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

4. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the alleged contemnor no. 1 has relied upon 2000 Volume 6 Supreme Court Cases 359 (Kunhayammed and Others vs. State of Kerala and Another), 2014 Volume 16 Supreme Court Cases 88 (Dineshan K.K vs. R.K. Singh and Another) 2023 SCC OnLine Cal 1152 (Sailesh Kumar vs. Smitha R. IAS and Another) and 2025 Volume 3 Supreme Court Cases 543 (Balbir Singh and Another vs. Baldev Singh) in support of his contention of merger.

5. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the alleged contemnor no. 1 has also drawn the attention of the Court to Articles 129, 141, 142 and 215 of the Constitution of India. He has submitted that, the Hon’ble Supreme Court by virtue of Article 129 of the Constitution of India is competent to issue contempt proceedings if, violation of its judgment and order is complained of.

6. Learned Senior Advocate ap