A judge's recusal is not warranted based on mere apprehensions of bias; substantial evidence must be presented to justify such a request.

JUDGMENT :

DEBANGSU BASAK, J.:-

1. Contemnor No. 1 in CC 57 of 2012 has filed the present application seeking this Division Bench in seisin of CC 57 of 2012 to recuse from the hearing of such contempt rule as also the connected applications therein.

2. Learned advocate appearing for the contemnor No. 1 has submitted that, the Court on diverse dates made various observations in course of hearing of the contempt rule of the connected applications which gave rise to reasonable apprehension of bias. In support of such contention, learned advocate appearing for the contemnor No. 1 has referred a written notes of arguments submitted in Court and in particular sentences claimed to be spoken on June 27, 2024, July 16, 2024, July 23, 2024, August 1, 2024, August 20, 2024, August 29, 2024, September 19, 2024, November 19, 2024, December 17, 2024.

3. Learned advocate appearing for the contemnor No. 1 has relied upon 1998 Volume 5 Supreme Court Cases 513 (State of West Bengal and Others vs. Shivananda Pathak and Others) in support of the contention that, bias may be defined as a pre-conceived opinion or a pre-disposition or pre-determination to decide a case or an issue in a particular manner, so much so that such disposition does not rule the mind upon the conviction.

4. We had by an order dated November 19, 2024 passed in presence of the parties, requested the learned Advocate General to appear in the contempt rule.

5. Learned Advocate General has submitted that, a prayer for recusal should be considered from the perspective of the person making such an application. He has pointed out that, the person making the application must bring some material on record to suggest, if not establish that, the Court in seisin of a proceeding has any pecuniary interest in the outcome of the lis or the Court has interest in the case or the Court has interest in the cause. He has contended that, taking the allegations levelled by the contemnor No. 1 to be true and correct, then also, none of such grounds stand made out. It is not the case of the contemnor No. 1 that, the Court has any pecuniary interest in the outcome of the lis or has any interest in the case or in the cause.

6. Learned Advocate General has pointed out that, a Judge of a Constitutional Court is bound by the oath of Office. In particular, he has referred to the fact that, a Judge of a Constitutional Court is required to deliver justice without fear or favour. He has contended that, should a Judge recuse from a case at the instance of a litigant who perceives observations made by the Court during hearing not to be favourable to such litigant, then, administration of justice will fail. The Judge would be failing to act true to the Oath of his Office. He has contended that, observations made by the Court are not to be construed as final decision of the Court. The final decision appears from the orders or judgments passed by the Court.

7. Learned Advocate General has relied upon 2016 Volume 5 Supreme Court Cases 808 (Supreme Court Advocate-on-Record Associations and Another vs. Union of India (Recusal Matter)) in support of his contentions.

8. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner in the contempt rule has contended that, the Court is yet to arrive at a final decision in the contempt rule. He has pointed out that, Court has taken a decision to issue contempt rule by the judgment and order dated August 1, 2024. Such judgment and order had been assailed before the Supreme Court by way of a Special Leave Petition which was disposed of by an order dated August 14, 2024.

9. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner in the contempt rule has contended that, observations made in course of hearing of an ongoing matter cannot be construed to mean that, the Court is biased. In support of such contention, he has relied upon 2009 Volume 8 Supreme Court Cases 106 (R.K.Anand vs. Registrar, Delhi High Court), 2014 Volume 8 Supreme Court Cases 470 (Subrata Roy Sahara vs. Union of India and Ot