Agartala: The High Court Bar Association has sought legal action against one Supreme Court lawyer for labelling corruption charges on Tripura High Court Chief Justice Deepak Gupta last week.
The association strongly condemned the conduct of lawyer Sujit Dutta and stated that the statements he made were totally “false, baseless and motivated” to sully the image of the High Court and Judiciary.
President of the association and senior advocate K N Bhattacharjee stated that the lawyers of the High Court unanimously requested the advocate general Bijan Kanti Das to initiate contempt proceedings against him.
“We have also requested Tripura Bar Council to look into the matter and cancel advocate Sujit Dutta’s enrolment as a lawyer as earlier he had been expelled from membership of Tripura Bar Association for misconduct” Bhattacharjee added.
Earlier, Dutta and elder brother of left parliamentarian from Tripura to Lok Sabaha Sujit Kumar Dutta sought impeachment against Chief Justice of the High Court of Tripura Deepak Gupta alleging abuse of power. He alleged Chief Justice Gupta influenced the state government to pay local travel fare of Rs 15,465 for his wife Poonam Gupta while she was away New Delhi alone last year.
“The Law department denied the request of payment of Gupta and returned the plea on August 24 last but unfortunately; the same bill was re-submitted in September last. Accordingly, an instruction from the state government reached the Tripura Bhawan, Delhi approving the payment”, Dutta said.
He accused Justice Gupta of abusing his High Official Power by exercising fear, favour or influence to convince the state government in approving the payment and argued that the sudden unexplained approval exuded secret ‘illegal nexus’ between the High Court Chief Justice and the state government.
Dutta wrote to President Pranab Mukherjee, Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Union Law Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad seeking investigation against Justice Gupta.
He further, accused the Chief Justice of obtaining personal gain by influencing purchase of 68 laptop computers for judicial officers of the High Court and added the work order was issued to the fourth lowest bidder depriving three others three without any reason or logic. (UNI)
