Judge's Niece in Courtroom Prompts Recusal—and a Rare Rebuke to Chief Justice's Circular

In an unusual twist during a matrimonial appeal at the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur, a division bench led by Justices Sanjay S. Agrawal and Narendra Kumar Vyas recused itself from hearing Ayushi Ginoria (Agrawal) v. Sumit Agrawal . The reason? Ms. Shivangi Agrawal, niece of Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal, had appeared as junior counsel for the respondent on two prior dates. Citing strict professional ethics rules, the bench stepped aside but went further, sharply criticizing a fresh circular from the Chief Justice aimed at curbing "bench hunting."

Matrimonial Dispute Sidetracked by Ethical Protocol

The underlying case, FA(MAT) No. 287 of 2025, pits appellant Ayushi Ginoria (Agrawal)—whose name was initially misspelled as Ginodia—against respondent Sumit Agrawal in a family appeal likely stemming from matrimonial discord. Details of the substantive dispute remain unaddressed in this order sheet dated April 17, 2026. Instead, the focus shifted when Ms. Shivangi Agrawal appeared on August 21, 2025, and March 30, 2026, as junior to Senior Advocate Manoj Paranjpe.

Appellant counsel Mayank Gupta and respondent counsel Sourabh Kale were present, but the bench invoked Rule 6, Part VI, Chapter II of the Standards of Professional Conduct and Etiquette (under Section 49(1)(c) of the Advocates Act). This rule prohibits advocates from appearing before courts where a judge is a close relative, including niece.

No Room for Debate: The Ironclad Rule on Relatives

The bench quoted the rule verbatim:

"An Advocate shall not enter appearance, act, plead or practise in any way before a court... if the sole [sic] of any member thereof is related to the Advocate as father... niece..."

To preempt "any kind of unwanted controversy," the judges deemed it "not desirable" to hear the matter. This self-initiated exception highlights judges' commitment to impartiality, even absent formal objection.

Circular Clash: Bench Asserts Independence

The plot thickened with a circular issued just a day prior, on April 16, 2026 (No. 7278/R.(J.)/2026), by Registrar (Judicial) Sumit Kapoor under the Chief Justice's directions. Aimed at preventing "bench/court hunting," it mandates lawyers to avoid or return briefs involving judge relatives, prior juniors, or close ties. For pending cases, benches can scrutinize timing and intent, granting exceptions only in "rare and bonafide circumstances" with written reasons.

Reports from legal circles noted the circular's intent to stop strategic shopping for favorable benches. Yet the bench pushed back, declaring:

"which case is to be made an exception and how the Court is to be functioned, is a prerogative of the concerned Bench and cannot be directed and restricted as such... The said circular, thus, appears to be an interference of the Court functioning."

This marks a bold affirmation of bench autonomy over administrative guidelines.

Key Observations

On the recusal trigger : "the appearance of Ms. Shivangi Agrawal... who is a junior counsel... and is a niece of one of us (Sanjay S. Agrawal, J.), therefore, it is not desirable to consider the said matter." - Strict prohibition : "An Advocate shall not enter appearance... if the sole of any member thereof is related to the Advocate as... niece." - Circular critique : "The aforesaid circular has been issued in order to prevent the practice of Bench/Court hunting, but... appears to be an interference of the Court functioning." - Bench prerogative : "a prerogative of the concerned Bench and cannot be directed and restricted as such."

Forward to the Chief: Preserving Judicial Flow

The bench ordered the matter listed before an "appropriate Bench" excluding Justice Agrawal, directing it to the Chief Justice for allocation. This procedural rerouting ensures the appeal proceeds without delay or perceived bias.

The episode underscores tensions between ethical safeguards and anti-manipulation measures, potentially influencing how high courts handle recusals amid evolving administrative policies. For litigants in family matters, it reinforces that personal ties can swiftly derail proceedings, prioritizing justice's appearance over convenience.