'Casting Aspersions On Judge' : Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain Plea For Inquiry Into Reasons For HC Judge's Recusal

The Supreme Court on Thursday (October 24) refused to entertain a petition seeking an inquiry into the recusal of Justice M Nagaprasanna of Karnataka High Court after reserving an order in a case, observing that the petition cast aspersions on the judge.

A bench of Justice Abhay Oka, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, and Justice Augustine George Masih however granted the petitioner to withdraw the petition and file a fresh petition restricting itself to the prayer seeking guidelines on the recusal of judges.

“After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner we found that objectionable as well as irrelevant averments have been made and attempt has been made to cast aspersions on the learned judge. We were therefore not inclined to entertain this petition. However learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that she wants to canvass the issue whether the hon'ble judges are bound to give reasons for recusal especially when recusal happens after the case is fully heard. The learned counsel therefore seeks permission to withdraw the petition with liberty to file a fresh petition in terms of prayer clause A. We accordingly dismissed the petition as withdrawn with liberty as aforesaid. We make it clear that today we have not made any adjudication on whether it will be appropriate to lay down guidelines regarding recusal”, the Court stated in the order.

The petition was filed after Justice M Nagaprasanna of the Karnataka High Court recused himself from a matter after reserving orders. The plea before HC sought registration of FIR against the wife and son of the state's Lokayukta and probe into allegations of corruption in Karnataka judiciary.

During the hearing, advocate Nisha Tiwari submitted that there was no intention to cast aspersions on the judge.

While the court acknowledged the petitioner's grievance about the judge recusing after reserving the order, it questioned the appropriateness of ordering an inquiry into the circumstances of the recusal. He remarked, “We understand seeking guidelines, but how can an inquiry be ordered? Can we do that?”

“This will send wrong signals. We understand that after matter was fully heard the judge recused, therefore we should consider the feasibility of laying down guidelines. But you can't seek relief directing enquiry to be made under what circumstances the judge recused. If you are pressing this prayer then this shows you have some other motive in all this”, Justice Oka said.

The Court also objected to the petition claiming that the Lokayukta was in a position to influence the judiciary. “And do you think judges are so weak?...In your petition you are hinting that because of the influence of the Lokayukta, the judge has recused,” Justice Oka remarked.

The bench objected to the manner of filing the petition, stating that it suggested oblique motives. Justice Oka pointed out that the petition included detailed allegations against various individuals, which were unnecessary in a plea seeking guidelines on judicial recusal. He said that the submissions should have been confined to principles while seeking guidelines.

“What was the necessity of recording all the allegations against all the parties? And casting aspersions on the judge? All this is uncalled for”, he said.

Justice Oka said that the petition's averments cast aspersions on the judge. “This is not the way to file a petition. Read the allegations you have made such an action taken without explanation wastes judicial time, erodes the trust of litigants, raises questions on the independence of judiciary...Day in day out it happens, sometimes we hear the matter then we suddenly notice that we know one of the parties or we have some indirect connection and we recuse.”

The counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was no intention to cast aspersions and requested permission to amend the petition, stating that there was no oblique motive. However, Justice Oka did not agree, stating that it should be withdrawn.

The Court noted that it was not inclined to entertain the petition as “objectionable as well as irrelevant averments” had been made in the petition and that “attempts had been made to cast aspersions on the learned judge”. The Court allowed the petitioner to withdraw the petition, with liberty to file a fresh petition. The Court also clarified that it had not made any adjudication on whether guidelines for recusal should be laid down.

Case no. – Diary No. 49083/2024

Case Title – Chandraprabhav. Union of India