Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
KAUSIK CHANDA, J.
Mamata Banerjee - Appellant
Versus
Suvendu Adhikari - Respondent
EP No. 1 of 2021 With I A No. GA 1 of 2021
Decided On : 07-07-2021
Constitution of India, 1950 - Conflict of interest - Recusal petition on ground of apprehension of bias - The petitioner has challenged the election of the returned candidate who contested the election under the symbol of Bharatiya Janata Party - When a litigant raises the question of bias against a Judge, who has taken the oath to discharge his duties without any fear or favour, the test has to be a real likelihood of bias or real danger of bias. The appearance of impartiality, in such a case, should not be viewed from the perspective of a common man. It is for the Court to decide that in the given facts, a well informed reasonable man would perceive bias. In this case, the question of pecuniary interest does not arise at all. The interest, therefore, must be direct and not remote or tenuous.
Finding of the Court: The petitioner cannot seek recusal based upon her own consent or objection with regard to the appointment of a Judge. A Judge cannot be said to be biased because of a litigant’s own perception and action. It is ludicrous to believe that the petitioner would expect a favourable order from a Judge whose appointment she has consented to and vice versa - imbroglio stemmed from the inception of the litigation was due to the assignment of this case before this Bench. Since the two persons involved in this case belong to the highest echelon of the State politics, in the name of saving the judiciary, some opportunists have already emerged. These trouble-mongers will try to keep the controversy alive and create newer controversies. The trial of the case before this Bench will be a tool to aggrandise themselves. It would be contrary to the interest of justice if such unwarranted squabble continues along with the trial of the case, and such attempts should be thwarted at the threshold. The hearing of the case should proceed seamlessly, like any other litigation before this Court.
Result: Application being IA No. G A No. 1 of 2021 is disposed of. EP 1 of 2021.
JUDGMENT :
1. This is an application for recusal of this Bench from the election petition No. 1 of 2021. The petitioner has challenged the election result declared on May 02, 2021, of Nandigram (assembly constituency 210), impleading the returned candidate as the respondent.
2. It appears that the present application for recusal was filed on June 23, 2021. Since no caveat has been lodged on behalf of the said respondent, and the election petition has not been heard effectively, I have decided to dispose of this application for recusal without hearing the respondent.
3. When the matter was taken up for hearing on June 24, 2021, the petitioner was present online. Her case was argued by Mr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, learned senior advocate appearing with Mr. S.N. Mookherjee, learned senior advocate.
4. Mr. Singhvi, learned senior advocate, has taken me to the various statements made in the recusal application to suggest that after filing, the election petition was mentioned before some Hon’ble Judges for hearing, but the same was not listed before the said Hon’ble Judges for want of determination.
5. The matter was assigned to this Bench on June 15, 2021, by the Hon’ble Chief Justice (Acting). The petitioner immediately wrote a letter to the Hon’ble Chief Justice (Acting) on June 16, 2021, for reassignment of the petition to a different Bench expressing apprehension of bias against her by this Bench.
6. Referring to the various paragraphs and annexures to the recusal petition, Mr. Singhvi suggested that I should recuse myself from the case since I was associated with the legal cell of the Bharatiya Janata Party and had appeared in a number of cases on behalf of the said party before this Court as a lawyer.
7. Mr. Singhvi referred to two articles published in some national newspapers that reported about two politically sensational cases where I represented the Bharatiya Janata Party as a lawyer before this Court.
8. Two tweets made by a leader of the said party on me in the years 2014 and 2015 have also been referred to.
9. A purported list of cases where I had allegedly represented the said party before this Court has also been annexed, and submissions have been made that such a list is only illustrative but not exhaustive.
10. Two photographs have been annexed to the application showing my presence in a programme organised by the BJP legal cell of the High Court at Calcutta in the year 2016, where the State BJP President was also present. An invitation letter of 2016 BJP legal cell showing my name as one of the speakers of a programme has also been annexed.
11. Mr. Singhvi has also placed reliance upon the letter dated June 16, 2021, whereby reassignment of the case was sought by the petitioner. In the said letter, the petitioner mentioned that when her view was sought on my confirmation as a permanent Judge of this Court by the then Hon’ble Chief Justice of this Court in April 2021, she expressed her objection and reservation against such confirmation. The petitioner stated in the letter that she might not get justice from this Bench since she apprehended that the fact of her objection regarding my appointment as a Judge of this Court was known to me.
12. After placing the application, Mr. Singhvi submitted that my long and close association with the Bharatiya Janata Party prior to my elevation is apparent. The petitioner has challenged the election of the returned candidate who contested the election under the symbol of Bharatiya Janata Party. Mr. Singhvi suggested that there was a conflict of interest in the matter since I had a close, personal, professional, pecuniary and ideological relationship with BJP. Mr. Singhvi urged that justice must not only be done but seen to be done. The recusal application was filed at the earliest possible opportunity, and nothing else had happened that this Bench could not decide the recusal application.
13. Mr. Singhvi submitted that the Hon’ble Judge of this Hon’ble Court should be like Caesar’s wife, above
Allegation of bias of judge - When a litigant raises the question of bias against a Judge, who has taken the oath to discharge his duties without any fear or favour, the test has to be a real likelih....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that adjudicating an election petition after the passage of time and subsequent elections, when the relief sought would serve no practical purpose,....
The application for recusal was dismissed due to insufficient evidence of bias, affirming that prior professional relationships do not inherently necessitate recusal unless substantial grounds exist.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of principles for the disqualification of a judge and the absence of grounds for recusal in the present case.
The 'real danger of bias' test imposes a high threshold for recusal applications, and mere dissatisfaction with a judge's prior rulings does not suffice to establish bias.
Judges must not be chosen by litigants; recusal requests require valid reasons to uphold judicial independence.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
