P.K. GHOSH, I.AS. AND ANR. versus J.G. RAJPUT

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 51 · Decided: 10-11-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.S. VERMA, K. VENKATASWAMI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

P.K. GHOSH, I.AS. AND ANR. 
A 
v. 
J.G. RAJPUT 
NOVEMBER 10, 1995 
[J.S. VERMA AND K. VENKATASWAMI, JJ.] 
B 
Judicial Propriety 
Rule of law-Basic postulate of-'Justice should not be done but must 
also be seen to be done'-Justice delivery system-Functioning of-Need for C 
ensuring public confidence and credibility in. 
Lawyer-Representing the case of a litigant-Elevation to High Court 
Bench-Hearing of contempt petition arising out of the case repre-
sented-Propriety of-Held the Judge should have recused himself from hear-
ing the contempt-Order passed in contempt petition held vitiated. 
D 
The respondent, an employee of the Ahmedabad Municipal Corpora-
tion, filed a writ petition challenging his suspension. In these p•·oceedings 
he was represented by Shri B.J. Shethna who was later appointed as a 
Judge of the Gujarat High Court. Consequently the respondent was rep-
E 
resented by another lawyer but in view of a settlement arrived at between 
the parties the writ petition was permitted to be withdrawn. Thereafter the 
respondent was served with a charge-sheet for theft of municipal property 
and his application for staying the enquiry pursuant to the said charge-
sheet as well as for restoration of his earlier writ petition was dismissed. 
He tiled a contempt petition under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and F 
a Division Bench of the High Court comprising R.A. Mehta and BJ. 
Shethna, JJ issued notice on it. The Municipal Corporation raised an 
objection to the hearing of the matter on the ground that B.J. Shetlma, J. 
had earlier represented the case of the appellant. Inspite of this objection 
the Bench of which B.J. Shethna was a member passed an order dated G 
18.3.1994 granting interim stay of the enquiry initiated against the respon-
dent. Against this order an appeal was preferred before this Court. 
Allowing the appeal and setting aside the impugned order, this Court 
HELD : 1. A basic postulate of the rule of law is that 'justice should H 
51 
-
52 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A 
not only be done but it must also be seen to be done'. If there be a basis 
which cannot be treated as unreasonable for a litigant to expect that his 
matter should not be heard by a particular Judge and there is no compell-
in·g necessity, such as the absence of an alternative, it is appropriate that 
the learned Judge should recuse himself from the Bench hearing that 
B 
c 
matter. This step is required to be taken by the learned Judge not because 
he is likely to be influenced in any manner in doing justice in the cause, but 
because his hearing the matter is likely to give rise to a reasonable ap-
prehension in the mind of the litigant that the mind of the learned Judge, 
may be subconsciously, influenced by some extraneous factor in favour of 
the opposite party. Credibility in the functioning of the justice delivery 
system and the reasonable perception of the affected parties are relevant 
considerations to ensure the continuance of public confidence in the 
credibility and impartiality of the judiciary. This is necessary not only for 
doing justice but also for ensuring that justice is seen to be done. [57-E-G] 
,-. 
2. In the facts and circumstances of this case, this facet of the rule 
D 
of law has been eroded. B.J. Shethna, J should have recused himself from 
hearing the contempt petition, particularly when a specific objection to this 
effect was taken by the appellants in view of the respondent's case in the 
contempt petition wherein the impugned order came to be made in his 
favour. The impugned order is vitiated for this alone. This Court hopes 
E 
that no such occasion would arise in future which may tend to erode the 
credibility of the course of administration of justice. [57-H; 58-A-B; 57-D] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 9955 of 
~~ 
1 
F 
From the Judgment and Order dated 18.3.94 of the Gujarat High 
Court in M.C.A. No. 1841/93 in S.C.A. No. 1497 of 1988. 
R.K. Jain, U.P. Adhyaru, A. Mehrotra and AP. Medh for the 
Appellants. 
G 
Ms. K. Sarada Devi for Ms. Naresh Bakshi for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
J.S. VERMA,, J. Leave granted. 
H 
This appeal. by special leave is against the order dated 18.3.1994 
P.K. GHOSH v. J.G. RAJPUT [J.S. VERMA, J.] 
53 
made in Misc. Civil Application No. 1841of1993 in Special Civil Applica-
A 
tion No. 1497of1988, by a Division Bench (R.A. Mehta and B.J. Shethna, 
JJ.) of the High Court of Gujarat. The impu

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.