When Litigants Attack: Bombay High Court Trashes 'Forum Shopping' Recusal Bid

In a stern rebuke to litigants attempting to manipulate the judicial process, the Bombay High Court has dismissed an interim application seeking the recusal of Justice Milind N. Jadhav. The court characterized the move, which was predicated on unsubstantiated allegations of bribery and corruption, as a classic example of "forum shopping" and a clear abuse of the judicial system.

The Backdrop: A Trail of Adjournments

The dispute stems from three Writ Petitions filed in 2016, arising under the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. While these matters were admitted in 2024, the path to final hearing has been marked by repeated delays. Following the resignation of the original advocate for the petitioners, the court had granted final hearing dates, only to be met by a petitioner, Kalpesh Rajendra Jain, who refused to argue the merits, instead opting to file a criminal complaint against two sitting judges—Justice Sandeep V. Marne and Justice Milind N. Jadhav.

The Tactics of Intimidation

The petitioner argued that the court must recuse itself, citing five grounds ranging from "violation of natural justice" to an alleged "reasonable apprehension of bias." Central to his argument was a complaint he had filed with the Chief Justice, claiming he was privy to evidence that both the current and previous benches had been "managed" through bribery.

Justice Jadhav, however, saw through the narrative. The court noted that the allegations were not only "prima facie scurrilous" but also logically inconsistent. The petitioner claimed to have received threat calls during a period when the present court was not even assigned to the case. In his ruling, Justice Jadhav dismantled the petitioner’s strategy, noting that the applicant was merely trying to avoid a bench he perceived to be "inconvenient."

Legal Precedents and the Oath of Office

The High Court relied heavily on the principle that a judge’s duty to sit on a case is as important as the duty to recuse when a conflict is genuine. The court cited the Supreme Court’s decision in Subrata Roy Sahara vs. Union of India , which emphasizes that a judge must not succumb to the temptation of recusal simply to avoid the discomfort of hearing a belligerent litigant.

Justice Jadhav underscored that: > "A Judge who prefers the recusal route despite knowing that the criticisms/insinuations made against him are baseless, would not be true to his oath of dispensing justice without fear and favour."

Key Observations

The judgment serves as a sharp reminder that the judiciary cannot be cowed by external pressure:

• On the duty of the Bench: "A Judge accepts judgeship to dispense justice without fear or favour and not to attain popularity of any kind."
• On forced recusal: "If I were to accede to the prayer for my recusal... I would be initiating a wrong practice, and laying down a wrong precedent."
• On the nature of the application: "Litigants cannot be allowed to tarnish the system of administration of Justice by vilification of Judges in such unsubstantiated manner."

The Verdict: Price of a Vexatious Plea

Ultimately, the Court rejected the application, asserting that the administration of justice must remain "pure, untainted, and uninfluenced." To deter similar conduct in the future, the court dismissed the application with exemplary costs, directing the petitioner to pay Rs. 50,000 to the High Court Legal Services Authority within two weeks. Failure to do so will result in recovery as arrears of land revenue.

This ruling stands as a significant fortification of judicial independence, signaling that while the doors of the court are open to all, they are not a platform for litigants to intimidate those presiding over the bench.