Point of Law: A judge who succumbs to ex parte pressure in unmerited cases helps devalue the judicial process. We must appreciate Shri Ramasesh for his young candour and correct advocacy

ORDER :

Abhay S. Oka, J.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has tendered across the Bar a memo for withdrawal of this petition. Though we are permitting withdrawal, it cannot be unconditional looking to the nature of allegations made in this petition.

2. The present petitioner is the second respondent in Writ Petition No.15239/2020 who is represented by the same learned counsel in the said petition. When the said Writ Petition No.15239/2020 came up before the learned Single Judge on 23rd December 2020, a very peculiar request was made by the learned counsel who appears for the petitioner in this petition. The request was not only peculiar, but shocking. The request was that the present petitioner wants to request the Hon’ble Chief Justice to have this matter heard by a non-Karnataka Judge of this Court and that a decision be taken in this regard. Following is the order dated 23rd December 2020:

“Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 Shri Kumara K.G. submits that a request is made to the Hon’ble Chief Justice to have this matter heard by non-Karnataka judge of this Court and that a decision is being taken in this regard.

In view of the above, matter is adjourned by four weeks; in the meanwhile, the proceedings in the Court below shall not be precipitated.

It is open to the petitioner to serve copy of the petition on the first respondent in the Court below; learned trial judge to facilitate such service.”

(underline supplied)

3. Prior to that, the present petition appears to have been filed on 22nd December 2020 seeking a very peculiar writ of mandamus. Prayer (1) of this petition reads thus:

“1. Exercise powers vested under Rule 6 of Chapter II of the High Court Rules, 1959 to allot W.P.No.15239/2020 either to this Hon’ble Court (i.e., the Bench constituted by the Chief Justice) or any other Court which is constituted by the judge hailing from a different state other than Karnataka.”

(underline supplied)

4. Thus, a writ of mandamus is sought to the effect that the writ petition should be tried by a Bench consisting of the Hon’ble Chief Justice or any other Bench which is constituted by a Judge hailing from a different State other than Karnataka.

5. The averments made in the petition constitute a classical example of scandalizing the Court which is per se a criminal contempt of this Court as defined in the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (for short ‘the said Act of 1971’). The first allegation which is very specific at page 4 of the petition is that the Roster Judge will not give justice to the petitioner who is the second respondent in W.P.No.15239/2020 on the footing that there is an excessive interference by the former Chief Justice of India who is specifically named therein. We are deliberately not referring to the name of the former Chief Justice. The matter does not rest here. Paragraph after paragraph, there are allegations made against the former Chief Justice of India by naming him repeatedly. Paragraph 8 of the writ petition reads thus:

“8. Being aggrieved by the posting of the case before Court Hall No.15 or any other court in which a judge from Karnataka Bar would be on the bench, who would for obvious reasons have close proximity, allegiance and reverence towards the Former Chief Justice of India Sri xxxxxx, as per the strong grounded apprehension of this Petitioner, the said postings would not result in yielding just results in disposal of the cases on hand. Having no other alternative, the Petitioner has approached this Hon’ble Court on the following amongst other grounds.”

(underline supplied)

6. While reproducing paragraph 8, we have deliberately masking the name of the former Hon’ble Chief Justice of India. Paragraphs 10, 11 and 13 read thus:

“10. It is submitted that, it is a strong apprehension of the Petitioner that, the Respondents to wield clout upon the Hon’ble Court has purposefully articulated that:

“It is submitted that Government of Karnataka on an enquiry held into malfeasances and maladminis