Supreme Court Rejects Recusal Plea in Sanjiv Kumar Bhatt Case: Allegations of Forum Shopping Dismissed (10 May 2023)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 10 May 2023

Citation: 2023 INSC 515

Judges: Justice M.R. Shah and Justice C.T. Ravikumar

Can a judge be compelled to step down from a case simply because they made prior observations about a party’s conduct in a related matter? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question, rejecting a plea for recusal and highlighting the importance of judicial integrity and preventing abuse of the legal process. This case involves a petitioner seeking recusal of one of the judges based on prior observations made in a related case. The Supreme Court found this to be an attempt at forum shopping and bench hunting.

Case Background

The petitioner, Sanjiv Kumar Rajendrabhai Bhatt, filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Supreme Court. Prior to this, the petitioner had been involved in proceedings before the High Court of Gujarat arising from the same First Information Report (FIR). In 2011, the High Court made some observations against the petitioner regarding delaying tactics. The petitioner, in the present SLP, sought the recusal of one of the judges, Justice M.R. Shah, citing these prior observations as a reason. The petitioner had previously approached the Supreme Court in a related matter, challenging the High Court’s refusal to suspend his sentence, without raising any objections to the bench.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The petitioner initially approached the Supreme Court in a related matter, challenging the High Court’s refusal to suspend his sentence, without raising any objections to the bench. The present matter came up for hearing on multiple occasions, and the petitioner’s counsel sought adjournments. However, the recusal request was only made when the matter was taken up for final hearing. The Supreme Court noted that the petitioner’s recusal request was made after several adjournments and only when the matter was being heard, indicating an attempt to avoid the bench.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court considered the principles of judicial recusal and the concept of forum shopping. 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. These cases discuss the circumstances under which a judge should recuse themselves from a case.

Arguments

Petitioner’s Arguments:

• The petitioner argued that one of the judges should recuse from the matter due to prior observations made against the petitioner by the same judge in a related case before the High Court.
• The petitioner relied on the principles laid down in 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, which discuss the grounds for judicial recusal.

Respondents’ Arguments:

• The State and the original complainant vehemently opposed the recusal request.
• They argued that the prayer was an attempt to abuse the process of law and indulge in forum shopping and bench hunting.
• They highlighted that the petitioner had previously approached the Supreme Court in a related matter without raising any objections to the bench.
• They emphasized that the recusal request was made only after several adjournments and when the matter was being heard, indicating a mala fide intention to avoid the bench.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues but addressed the core issue of whether the judge should recuse from the case based on the petitioner’s request.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

Cases Cited by the Petitioner:

• Ranjit Thakur vs. Union of India and Ors., (1987) 4 SCC 611: This case discusses the principles of judicial recusal. (Supreme Court of India)
• Locabail (U.K.) Ltd. Vs. Bayfield Properties Ltd. and Anr., (2000) 2 WLR 870: This case from the Court of Appeal also deals with the grounds for judicial recusal. (Court of Appeal)

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Ranjit Thakur vs. Union of India and Ors., (1987) 4 SCC 611: The Court acknowledged the principles of judicial recusal discussed in this case but distinguished the facts, finding that the petitioner’s request did not meet the criteria for recusal.
• Locabail (U.K.) Ltd. Vs. Bayfield Properties Ltd. and Anr., (2000) 2 WLR 870: The Court considered the principles discussed in this case but found that the petitioner’s request did not meet the criteria for recusal.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to prevent abuse of the legal process and maintain judicial integrity. The Court was of the view that the petitioner’s request was a calculated attempt to avoid a particular bench, rather than a genuine concern about bias. The timing of the recusal request, after several adjournments and just before the final hearing, strongly suggested a mala fide intention.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered the petitioner’s argument that prior observations by one of the judges in a related matter before the High Court created a bias. However, the Court rejected this argument, noting that the petitioner had previously approached the Supreme Court in a related matter without raising any objections to the bench. The Court also noted that the recusal request was made only after several adjournments and when the matter was being heard, indicating a mala fide intention to avoid the bench. The Court emphasized that merely because some proceedings might have been heard by one of the judges before the High Court and some observations might have been made against the petitioner on delaying tactics, cannot be a ground to accede to the request made by the petitioner.

The Supreme Court stated, “Having heard the learned Senior Advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length on the letter circulated, we are of the opinion 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 further stated, “It is to be noted 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 concluded, “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

• A judge’s prior observations in a related matter do not automatically necessitate recusal.
• Recusal requests must be made in good faith and not as a tactic to avoid a particular bench.
• The Supreme Court will not entertain attempts at forum shopping or bench hunting.
• Judicial integrity and the need to prevent abuse of the legal process are paramount.

Directions

No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this order.

Specific Amendments Analysis

Not applicable in this judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a judge’s prior observations in a related matter do not automatically necessitate recusal. The Supreme Court emphasized that recusal requests must be made in good faith and not as a tactic to avoid a particular bench. This case reinforces the principle that judicial integrity and the need to prevent abuse of the legal process are paramount.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court rejected the recusal plea by Sanjiv Kumar Rajendrabhai Bhatt, finding it an attempt to indulge in forum shopping and bench hunting. The Court emphasized that prior observations made in a related case do not necessitate recusal and that such requests must be made in good faith. This judgment reinforces the importance of judicial integrity and the need to prevent abuse of the legal process.