Judges Can't Succumb To Wild Allegations Of Bias: Kerala High Court Rejects Plea By Advocate Facing Contempt For Recusal Of Justice Sophy Thomas
The Kerala High Court recently rejected the application moved by Advocate Yeshwanth Shenoy, seeking recusal of Justice Sophy Thomas from hearing the suo motu contempt proceedings initiated against him for alleged misbehaviour in Court.While rejecting the application, the Division Bench comprising Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Sophy Thomas observed:"A Judge, who has taken the oath...
The Kerala High Court recently rejected the application moved by Advocate Yeshwanth Shenoy, seeking recusal of Justice Sophy Thomas from hearing the suo motu contempt proceedings initiated against him for alleged misbehaviour in Court.
While rejecting the application, the Division Bench comprising Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Sophy Thomas observed:
"A Judge, who has taken the oath of office to discharge his/her duties without fear or favour, affection or ill-will, if succumbs to the threat posed by a party litigant or his Counsel, who makes wild allegations of bias, or false implications in a case, it will have a negative impact on the independence of judiciary, and may set a bad precedent in the justice delivery system. In order to avoid such a bad precedent, Justice Sophy Thomas is not intending to recuse herself on the grounds urged by Adv. Yeshwanth Shenoy. The petitioner cannot agitate beyond the choice made by the judge concerned. As no valid reasons exist at present, his plea for recusal is accordingly rejected".
Shenoy had allegedly displayed intemperate behaviour and raised allegations against Justice Mary Joseph, while appearing in a case before her. Pursuant to the same, Justice Joseph had filed a complaint and a suo motu contempt case was initiated. Upon instructions of the Chief Justice, the matter was placed before the roster bench comprising Justice Mustaque and Justice Thomas.
It is at this juncture that Shenoy sought the recusal of Justice Thomas vide an application, raising allegation of personal bias. Shenoy said he intends to implead Justice Thomas as an additional Respondent in a contempt case. Further, he cited a previous contempt case in which he appeared for the petitioner, where the then Registrar (Judicial), acting under the instructions of then Registrar General (now Justice Thomas) had to admit non-compliance with the Court's directions and had to apologize.
The Court noted that while the Registrar (Judicial) had been reprimanded for non-compliance of the High Court's direction in that case, no contempt action was taken against Justice Thomas. It observed that the Registrar (Judicial) is an independent functionary, although he is working under the Registrar General in the larger administrative set-up. The Court was thus of the view that the act complained of against the Registrar (Judicial) could not even be remotely imputed to pass on that responsibility to the Registrar General.
The Court went on to remark upon the ability of a judge to discharge his duties uninfluenced by his emotional values, which is a facet of their personality.
"The subtle distinction between a judge functioning in the official capacity of a judge of the court of law and the personal values and ethos of the judge have no manifest distinction in the understanding of a common man. However, a judge is conscious of that blurred line which allows them to distinguish the value that is to be followed in their official capacity and their personal life. The stoic outlook or posture, uninfluenced by any other external factors, makes the judge what he/she is. The robust mind in which conscience is built makes the judge, a judge. Irrespective of his beliefs, or faith, the ability of a judge to discharge his duties uninfluenced by his emotional values symbolise blindfolded justice, reflecting the idea that they are detached from all types of influence that may permeate their decision. This facet of the Judge's personality or character cannot be viewed in isolation when a plea of recusal is raised," the Court noted.
It added that a plea for recusal would have to be accepted when a judge on a personal level may have an interest in the outcome of the case.
"If the judge tends to accept such a plea for recusal without any reason and on a mere plea raised by a party or a lawyer, that could be akin to accepting that the judge has lost his conscience and is vulnerable to a cause raised before him," the Court observed.
The Court further noted that the contempt case at the instance of Shenoy where he intends to implead Justice Thomas was yet to be numbered. It thus expressed doubt as to how Justice Thomas could then be impleaded as an additional respondent in the case.
"We do not understand how he (Advocate Shenoy) can propose to implead Justice Sophy Thomas without the same being entertained and numbered. Obviously, the attempt of Adv. Yeshwanth Shenoy is to compel Justice Sophy Thomas to avoid hearing the matter by raising unnecessary allegations. Justice Sophy Thomas has no interest in that cause or in its outcome, as alleged by Adv. Yeshwanth Shenoy," the Court remarked.
It thus rejected his application for recusal and directed the present contempt case as well as the unnumbered contempt case to be posted on July 14, 2023.
Case Title: Suo Motu v. Yeshwanth Shenoy
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 312