Date of the Judgment: May 10, 2023
Citation: SLP (Crl.) No. 9445 of 2022
Judges: M.R. Shah, J. and C.T. Ravikumar, J.
Can a judge be asked to recuse from a case simply because they made observations about a party in a previous, related case? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a criminal matter where the petitioner sought the recusal of one of the judges. The court ultimately rejected the recusal request, finding it to be a tactic to avoid the bench. This decision highlights the importance of judicial impartiality while also guarding against the misuse of recusal requests. The bench comprised Justices M.R. Shah and C.T. Ravikumar, with the judgment authored by Justice M.R. Shah.
Case Background
The case arises from a Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by Sanjiv Kumar Rajendrabhai Bhatt against the State of Gujarat. The petitioner sought the recusal of one of the judges, Justice M.R. Shah, citing observations made by the judge in a previous High Court matter arising from the same First Information Report (FIR). The petitioner argued that these observations, which criticized the petitioner’s delaying tactics, created a bias. The petitioner had previously approached the Supreme Court in a related matter without raising any recusal concerns.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2011 | High Court made strictures against the conduct of the petitioner on the delaying tactics adopted by him in a matter arising out of the same FIR. |
| Prior to 2020 | Petitioner approached the Supreme Court in a matter arising out of the same FIR pertaining to the order challenging the refusal of the High Court to suspend the sentence of the petitioner being SLP (Crl.) Diary No. 2028 of 2020. |
| 09.11.2022 | Letter circulated by the petitioner praying that one of the judges may recuse from the matter. |
| 14.12.2022 | Matter adjourned. |
| 10.01.2023 | Matter adjourned. |
| 27.02.2023 | Matter adjourned. |
| 28.03.2023 | Matter adjourned. |
| 02.05.2023 | Matter adjourned. |
| 10.05.2023 | Supreme Court rejected the recusal plea. |
Course of Proceedings
The petitioner had previously approached the Supreme Court challenging the High Court’s refusal to suspend his sentence in a related matter. At that time, no recusal request was made. The present recusal request was made through a circulated letter after several adjournments, and when the matter was finally being heard. The State of Gujarat and the original complainant vehemently opposed the recusal request, arguing it was a tactic to avoid the bench.
Legal Framework
The petitioner relied on the observations made by the Supreme Court in Ranjit Thakur vs. Union of India and Ors., (1987) 4 SCC 611 and the decision of the Court of Appeal in Locabail (U.K.) Ltd. vs. Bayfield Properties Ltd. and Anr., (2000) 2 WLR 870. The petitioner contended that the prior observations by Justice M.R. Shah in the High Court created a reasonable apprehension of bias, warranting recusal.
Arguments
The petitioner, represented by Shri Devadatt Kamat, argued that the prior observations made by Justice M.R. Shah in the High Court against the petitioner’s conduct created a reasonable apprehension of bias. The petitioner relied on the principles of judicial recusal to support his claim.
The respondents, represented by Shri Maninder Singh for the State and Shri A.N.S. Nadkarni for the original complainant, vehemently opposed the recusal request. They argued that it was a mala fide attempt at forum shopping and bench hunting, aimed at avoiding a particular bench. They pointed out that the petitioner had not raised this issue earlier when the case was listed before the same bench.
| Submission | Sub-Submission |
|---|---|
| Petitioner’s Submission: Recusal based on apprehension of bias |
✓ Prior observations by Justice M.R. Shah in the High Court against the petitioner’s conduct created a reasonable apprehension of bias. ✓ Relied on Ranjit Thakur vs. Union of India and Ors., (1987) 4 SCC 611 and Locabail (U.K.) Ltd. vs. Bayfield Properties Ltd. and Anr., (2000) 2 WLR 870. |
| Respondents’ Submission: Recusal request is mala fide and an attempt at forum shopping |
✓ The recusal request was a mala fide attempt at forum shopping and bench hunting. ✓ The petitioner did not raise the issue earlier when the case was listed before the same bench. ✓ The request was made after several adjournments and when the matter was being heard. |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The primary issue before the Supreme Court was whether the recusal request by the petitioner was justified based on the principles of judicial recusal and the facts of the case.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | How the Court Dealt with It |
|---|---|
| Whether the recusal request was justified | The Court rejected the recusal request, stating it was an attempt to indulge in forum shopping and bench hunting with mala fide intention. The Court noted that the petitioner had not raised the issue earlier and had sought multiple adjournments before pressing the recusal request. |
Authorities
| Authority | Court | How it was used |
|---|---|---|
| Ranjit Thakur vs. Union of India and Ors., (1987) 4 SCC 611 | Supreme Court of India | Cited by the petitioner to argue that prior observations created a reasonable apprehension of bias. |
| Locabail (U.K.) Ltd. vs. Bayfield Properties Ltd. and Anr., (2000) 2 WLR 870 | Court of Appeal | Cited by the petitioner to support the argument for recusal based on apprehension of bias. |
Judgment
| Submission by Parties | How it was treated by the Court |
|---|---|
| Petitioner’s submission that prior observations by Justice M.R. Shah created a reasonable apprehension of bias. | Rejected. The Court found the request to be a mala fide attempt to avoid the Bench. |
| Respondents’ submission that the recusal request was an attempt at forum shopping and bench hunting. | Accepted. The Court agreed that the request was made with mala fide intention to avoid the Bench. |
The Court rejected the recusal request, holding that it was a mala fide attempt to indulge in forum shopping and bench hunting. The Court noted that the petitioner had not raised the issue earlier and had sought multiple adjournments before pressing the recusal request.
The Court observed that the petitioner’s attempt to avoid the bench was not bona fide. The Court stated that earlier proceedings before the High Court and some observations made against the petitioner on delaying tactics cannot be a ground to accede to the request made by the petitioner.
The Court stated that the prayer for recusal lacked bona fide and seemed to have been made with mala fide intention to avoid the Bench for no valid reason.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the timing and context of the recusal request. The Court noted that the petitioner had not raised the recusal issue earlier, even when the case was listed before the same bench. The fact that the request was made after several adjournments and just when the matter was being heard indicated a mala fide intention to avoid the bench. The court also considered that the prior observations made against the petitioner were in the context of delaying tactics, which did not justify recusal.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Mala fide intention of the Petitioner | 40% |
| Attempt to avoid the bench | 30% |
| Lack of bona fide in the request | 20% |
| Prior conduct of the petitioner | 10% |
| Ratio | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 70% |
| Law | 30% |
The Court did not find any merit in the petitioner’s claim that the prior observations created a reasonable apprehension of bias. The Court emphasized that the request was a mala fide attempt to avoid the bench.
The Court observed that, “the request of recusal is nothing but an attempt to indulge in Forum Shopping and Bench Hunting and to avoid the Bench with mala fide intention.”
The Court also stated that, “earlier the Bench headed by one of us heard the special leave petition in a case relating to the very FIR and filed by the very petitioner and at that point of time, no such objection was raised and no such prayer was made.”
The Court further stated that, “As the prayer lacks bona fide and seems to have been made with mala fide intention to avoid the Bench for no valid reason, the prayer for recusal is rejected.”
Key Takeaways
- ✓ Recusal requests must be made in good faith and not as a tactic to avoid a particular bench.
- ✓ Prior observations by a judge in a related matter do not automatically warrant recusal.
- ✓ The timing and context of a recusal request are important factors in determining its validity.
Directions
No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this case.
Development of Law
The judgment reinforces the principle that recusal requests must be made in good faith and not as a tactic to avoid a particular bench. It underscores that prior observations by a judge in a related matter do not automatically warrant recusal, especially when the request is made with mala fide intention.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court rejected the recusal request by Sanjiv Kumar Rajendrabhai Bhatt, finding it to be a mala fide attempt at forum shopping and bench hunting. The Court emphasized that the petitioner had not raised the issue earlier and had sought multiple adjournments before pressing the request. This decision reinforces the importance of bona fide recusal requests and discourages the misuse of such requests to avoid a particular bench.