Breaking: Delhi High Court Bench Recuses After Heated Exchange Over Case Management

In an unusual turn of events at the High Court of Delhi, a Division Bench comprising Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Ajay Digpaul has recused itself from hearing a series of connected writ petitions. The decision followed an intense courtroom confrontation, during which a counsel cast aspersions on the Bench’s method of prioritizing matters.

The Conflict: Priority vs. Procedure

The court was presented with a batch of cases involving long-standing labor disputes, pension claims for widows, and termination appeals from employees who had been awaiting justice for years. Faced with a docket of 106 matters on a single day, the Bench sought to manage the judicial burden by prioritizing cases based on the longevity and urgency of the claims, particularly those involving vulnerable individuals.

When the court proposed to renotify the present batch of petitions—which focused on the effective date of Pay Commission recommendations—to prioritize older, more pressing matters, counsel for the respondents, Ms. Hazarika, voiced strong opposition.

The Allegation of "Picking and Choosing"

The situation escalated when, not content with arguing the legal merits of an immediate hearing, the counsel alleged that the Bench was "choosing and picking" cases to hear. For the presiding judges, this charge struck at the core of judicial impartiality.

In their order, the Bench noted the gravity of the accusation, stating, "This is deeply disturbing. Clearly, Ms. Hazarika has no faith in this Bench, and feels that it is arbitrarily choosing the cases it wants to hear."

Key Observations

The judgment reflects the difficulty faced by judges in managing strained court dockets:

• On the necessity of balancing dockets: "Our endeavour has always been to dispose of as many matters as possible. In doing so, we have to factor in the urgency of the matter and its longevity. Else, we would be doing more injustice than justice."
• On the duty of the Court: Referring to the counsel’s demand for the court’s time, the judges noted: "If only we could. We would not have taken exception to these submissions of Ms. Hazarika, as we are used to Counsel expecting that every matter should be heard."
• On the rationale for recusal: "In these circumstances, applying the principle that justice must not only be done but must be seen to have been done, we do not think it appropriate for us to retain these matters with us."

Justice Must Be Seen to be Done

The Bench underscored that when a litigant or counsel expresses a lack of faith in the integrity of the process, the only appropriate remedy is to step aside. By moving the matter before the Hon’ble Chief Justice for assignment to another Bench, the judges ensured that the integrity of the judicial process remained beyond reproach.

The matters are now scheduled to be listed before a different Bench on March 4, 2025. This episode serves as a stark reminder of the delicate balance between the bar's advocacy and the bench's administrative responsibility to ensure that the most vulnerable litigants receive timely justice.