Back
Seeks and CCTV Preservation in Judge's Secretary Collusion Row
In a dramatic turn in the of former Trinamool Congress minister Sujit Bose, the has been drawn into a controversy over alleged attempts to access from a judge's chamber. Justice Suvra Ghosh, who had reserved the matter for judgment, recused herself after stating that an advocate for the petitioner had contacted her private secretary to obtain the records. Now, the advocate concerned, , has filed an categorically denying any collusion and asking the High Court to preserve and conduct an to establish her innocence.
A New Twist in a High-Profile Bail Plea
The controversy erupted within days of Justice Ghosh hearing Bose's bail application in . According to the sequence set out in Bhowal's , the matter was heard and reserved for judgment on . The next day, however, an incident around the judge's chamber triggered an allegation that an attempt had been made to access the case file without authorization.
Justice Ghosh subsequently recused from the matter, telling the court that an advocate for the petitioner had allegedly made contact with her private secretary, Shikha Mukherjee, who is also the Court Officer posted in Court Room No. 15. The judge’s immediately cast a cloud over the and raised questions about the confidentiality of in the judges' corridor.
The : A Step-by-Step Account
Bhowal, who appeared as the for Bose, has now placed on record a detailed version of events that she says contradicts the allegation. According to her , she was not acting on any secret arrangement. Instead, she says, she responded to what appeared to be an official request from the Court Officer.
Around 2.25 PM on , Bhowal received a telephone call and WhatsApp message from Advocate , the junior of Senior Advocate , who was also appearing for Bose. Ahmed informed her that Shikha Mukherjee, the Court Officer, had asked her to come to the courtroom to supply copies of judgments that had been relied upon during the hearing.
Bhowal says she went to Court Room No. 15 at approximately 2.35 PM and met the Court Officer. Mukherjee then asked her to accompany her to the Sesquicentenary Building so that Bhowal could identify the judgments required. The advocate maintains that she had no reason to suspect that this would lead to the judges' chambers.
According to the , between approximately 2.40 PM and 2.42 PM, the Court Officer took her to the judges' corridor and into the front room of Justice Ghosh's chamber, where two court staff members were present. Bhowal states that the Court Officer asked her to sit on a chair and then asked a staff member sitting outside the chamber to show the .
At that point, the staff member replied that the case file was with Justice Ghosh and therefore could not be shown.
"I have not uttered any word,"
Bhowal stated. She says she immediately left the place without saying anything.
Denial of Any Collusion
The specifically rejects the suggestion that Bhowal attempted to enter the judge's chamber or acted in concert with the Court Officer to obtain the case file.
"I have never connived with the learned Court Officer to bring out the record of the case with an oblique motive,"
the
states.
She further asserted:
"I have never tried to enter the chamber of Her Ladyship the Hon'ble Justice Suvra Ghosh"
during the relevant period.
Bhowal's account continues after the visit to the chamber area. She states that the Court Officer requested her in the corridor of the Sesquicentenary Building to hand over copies of the judgments cited by Senior Advocate . She later supplied two judgments at Court Room No. 15 at around 3.10 PM. These judgments, according to the , were orders delivered by Justice Ghosh in on and on .
Bhowal also said she later learned from Advocate that the Court Officer had called the registered clerk of Senior Advocate Banerjee on August 18 for the purpose of obtaining copies of the judgments. This detail, she argues, supports her position that the request for judgments was routine and not a covert maneuver.
Legal Questions Raised by the Incident
The incident raises several significant issues for the and the broader legal profession. The first concerns the boundaries between court staff, counsel, and judicial chambers. A judge's chamber is not a public space, and any request to access outside the formal registry process must be viewed with strict caution. Even if an advocate is invited by a court officer, the advocate is expected to recognize the impropriety of entering such spaces without clear judicial authorization.
The second issue is the standard of proof required before a judge decides to recuse. is a serious judicial act, especially in a pending bail matter where liberty of an accused is at stake. If a judge believes that the integrity of the proceedings has been compromised, may be necessary to preserve public confidence in the administration of justice. At the same time, an advocate facing such an allegation is entitled to a fair opportunity to clear their name.
Bhowal has sought an to prove her innocence and has asked the court to preserve the of the front room of Justice Ghosh's chamber. Her request is significant because from the judges' corridor could provide an objective account of exactly what transpired between 2.40 PM and 2.42 PM. The footage could show whether Bhowal entered the chamber itself, whether she was invited by the Court Officer, and whether there was any attempt to conceal the visit.
What This Means for Courtroom Practice
The controversy is a reminder that the relationship between counsel and court staff can create ethical grey areas. While it is common for court officers to request copies of judgments or coordinate with counsel during a hearing, any communication that occurs outside the formal courtroom process carries the risk of being mischaracterized.
For advocates-on-record, the incident underscores the need for caution when receiving directions from court staff. Even a seemingly innocuous request to go to another building or a judge's corridor can become the subject of serious allegations. An advocate who finds themselves in such a situation should, ideally, ensure that communication is transparent and documented, and should avoid entering restricted areas without explicit authorization.
For the judiciary, the incident highlights the importance of clear protocols for handling . Case files are not to be shown to counsel outside the presence of the judge or the registry. If judgments need to be supplied, there should be a formal mechanism that does not involve access to the judge's chamber. Reliance on personal secretaries and court officers to transmit requests can lead to ambiguity and, in the worst case, allegations of interference with the judicial process.
Awaiting the High Court's Response
The has not yet formally ruled on Bhowal's request for an or for preservation of . The outcome will be watched closely by the legal community, as it may set a precedent for how allegations of unauthorized access to are investigated.
Bhowal's presents a coherent narrative: she was summoned by the Court Officer, she did not initiate contact with the judge's staff, and she did not touch or inspect the case file. She says she left as soon as she realized that the records were with the judge. Whether that narrative can be verified through CCTV and witness statements will determine the next chapter in this controversy.
As the matter awaits further orders, the central tension remains clear. On one side is the need to protect the sanctity of judicial chambers and the confidentiality of . On the other is the professional reputation of an advocate who says she was merely following directions from court staff. The High Court's handling of this dispute will be a test of both procedural fairness and institutional vigilance.
Conclusion
The accusation against has already resulted in Justice Suvra Ghosh stepping away from Sujit Bose's bail plea. What began as a routine request for judgment copies has escalated into a full-blown administrative and ethical controversy. With Bhowal demanding an and the preservation of , the focus now shifts to the High Court to ensure that the truth is established through a transparent process. For the legal profession, the case is a stark reminder that even routine interactions with court staff can carry serious professional consequences.
