Supreme Court: Litigant Not Allowed to Seek Recusal Of Judge On Ground That An Unsatisfactory Order May be Delivered

Supreme Court: Litigant Not Allowed to Seek Recusal Of Judge On Ground That An Unsatisfactory Order May be Delivered

On 5 February 2021, Justice MR Shah of the Supreme Court of India (SC) rejected a plea seeking recusal of Justice DY Chandrachud from a hearing. The SC observed that recusal would not be allowed as it is not based on reasonable grounds, and thus dismissed an application for recalling of the previous order.

Justice MR Shah observed in the case of Neelam Manmohan Attavar (Petitioner) v. Manmohan Attavar (Respondents), that a litigant cannot seek recusal of a Judge from hearing his/her case on the ground that he/she may not get a favourable order. It was stated that a litigant cannot be permitted to choose a Bench of its choice.

The factual background of the case is that a domestic violence complaint was dismissed by Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru. Later, an appeal was initiated against the said order that was also dismissedby the Additional Sessions Judge. A revision petition was filed at the High Court (HC) that was also dismissed and later the petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The writ petition was transferred to the SC where the division bench comprising of Justices DY Chandrachud and KM Joseph, held that it the petition was not maintainable, as an order passed by HC, in the exercise of its judicial powers, cannot be challenged.

The petitioner moved an application wherein she sought to recall the order and submitted that Justice Chandrachud should recuse himself from hearing the present application.

Justice Shah, who authored the order observed, "We see no valid and good ground for recusal by one of us. Merely because the order might not be in favour of the applicant earlier, cannot be a ground for recusal.

A litigant cannot be permitted to browbeat the Court by seeking a Bench of its choice. Therefore, the prayer of the applicant¬ petitioner in person that one of us (Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J.) should recuse from hearing the present miscellaneous application is not accepted and the said prayer is rejected."

The Top Court observed that the petitioner filed an application earlier for recalling the order was lodged by the Registrar and the said application was dismissed.

The Court highlighted the earlier judgments passed on recusal in a judgment passed in August 2019, in the case of Seema Sapra v. Court On Its Own Motion, wherein the SC had observed that a Judge can recuse at his own volition, but need not at the mere asking of a litigating party.

It is further pointed out that in October 2019, the Apex Court had rejected the prayer for recusal of Justice Arun Mishra from heading the Constitution Bench formed to settle the interpretation of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Resettlement, and Rehabilitation Act.

The said judgment was authored by Justice Mishra who stated that the non-recusal is in the interest of justice and he would be committing a blunder if he recuses from the case. It was further added by the Justice that recusal cannot be sought by any litigant to choose a Bench and it is for the concerned Judge to decide to recuse.