Calcutta High Court laments delayed listing of two-decade-old Habeas Corpus plea after "23 years of hibernation"

Delay in listing cases including those involving personal liberty came to the fore yet again when the Calcutta High Court on Friday took up a two-decade-old habeas corpus writ petition. (Kanchan Tanti v. State of West Bengal and Ors.)The case concerned a hospital's failure to hand over a newborn to his mother after birth. .A Bench of Chief Justice Thottathil B Radhakrishnan and Justice Arijit Banerjee expressed strong displeasure at the delay by the Registry in listing the 1997 case, noting that the same has happened despite a judicial order passed on December 22, 1997 by then High Court Chief Justice to list the case after 3 months. ."Though different directions were issued with the further order to the Registry of this Court to list the matter after three months, it is a matter of great misfortune that this matter is listed today after 23 years of hibernation of this file in the cupboard of the High Court," the Court noted..The Court went on to to add that it should consider initiating action for misconduct against officers responsible, taking specific exception to the fact that it was a Habeas Corpus petition that was belatedly listed."When matters are not listed by the office of the High Court in spite of judicial orders, it may, at least in certain situations, be appropriate that the Courts should consider initiating action for misconduct against the officers concerned for having deflected the course of justice by disobeying judicial orders for posting a case", the order said. .It is a matter of great misfortune that the matter is listed after 23 years of hibernation of the file in the cupboard of High Court.Calcutta High Court .The Court had in its previous order of December 1997 issued a direction to the Director General of Police to have a case registered and to hand it over for investigation..The Court, on Friday, noted that pursuant to the 1997 order, the petitioner's sister was released and was left with the freedom to move, and make herself available for her statement to be recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Section 161 allows a police officer to examine eye-witnesses to a crime..The Court, therefore, deemed it appropriate to close proceedings stating that no further order was required. .When matter is not listed despite judicial orders, Court should consider action against officers (of the High Court).Calcutta High Court.Before parting, the Court reiterated its "strong displeasure against the department for not having this matter listed for the last 23 years.".The 23-year-old case was disposed of on these terms..[Read the Order]