SHAH AND S. RAVINDRA BHAT, JJ.] versus MANOHAR LAL & ORS. ETC.

Citation: [2019] 15 S.C.R. 1085 · Decided: 23-10-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARUN MISHRA

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 13 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1085
INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
v.
               MANOHAR LAL & ORS. ETC.
(Special Leave Petition (C) Nos.9036-9038 of 2016)
OCTOBER 23, 2019
[ARUN MISHRA, INDIRA BANERJEE, VINEET SARAN,
M.R. SHAH AND S. RAVINDRA BHAT, JJ.]
Justice Delivery System: Practice and Procedure – Recusal
of judge – Whether a Judge who has expressed an opinion in a
smaller Bench and the case has been referred to a larger Bench,
because of the conflict of the opinion or otherwise, can hear the
matter in a larger bench – Held: Rendering a decision on any issue
of law and the corrective procedure of it cannot be said to be ground
for recusal of a Judge; otherwise, no Judge can hear a review,
curative petition, or a reference made to the larger bench – A Judge
who had rendered any decision in a smaller combination is not
disqualified from being part of a larger Bench when a reference is
made to the larger bench – Rather, it is a consistent practice
prevailing in various High Courts as well as of Supreme Court to
include 
the 
same 
Judge/Judges 
in 
larger 
Benches.
(Arun Mishra, J.)
Justice Delivery System: Practice and Procedure – Recusal
of judge prayed for on the ground of legal pre-disposition – Held:
There is absolutely nothing wrong in holding a particular view in a
previous judgment for or against a view canvassed by a litigant –
No litigant can choose, who should be on the Bench – He cannot
say that a Judge who might have decided a case on a particular
issue, which may go against his interest subsequently or is part of a
larger Bench should not hear his case – Furthermore, if a party or
his Counsel can at length argue on the question of recusal of the
Judge before him, he can also successfully question the correctness
of a judgment rendered by him – If litigants are given the right to
seek recusal of a judge on the ground that in a smaller Bench, a
view has been taken by the Judge, the correctness of which has to
be decided by the larger Bench, which includes the same Judge,
then on a parity of reasoning recusal might be sought on the ground
 [2019] 15 S.C.R. 1085
  1085
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1086
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 15 S.C.R.
of the judge having taken a view one way or the other even in a
different case in which similar issues were involved if the judge has
decided similar issues earlier, in the same Court or in a different
Court – This would open the flood gates of forum shopping –
Recusal upon an imagined apprehension of legal pre-disposition
would, in reality amount to acceding to the request that a Judge
having a particular view and leanings in favour of the view which
suits a particular litigant, should man the Bench – It would not only
be allowing Bench hunting but would also be against the judicial
discipline and will erode the confidence of the common man for
which the judicial system survives –   If request for recusal on the
ground of legal pre-disposition in the form of a judgment is acceded
to, that would destroy the very edifice of an independent judicial
system – The entire judicial system is based on sound constitutional
principles – The roster making power is bestowed on the Chief Justice
of India so that litigants are not able to choose the Judges before
whom they have to argue a matter, and he is a constitutional
functionary who has been enjoined with this task at the highest
pedestal to exercise the power of roster making – Once he has
exercised his power, it is not for the Judges to choose – As per their
oath, they have to discharge their duties without fear and favour
and in a dispassionate manner without any ill will, bias towards
litigants, or a cause – Abuse of court – Bench Hunting.
(Arun Mishra, J.)
Abuse of court:  Bench hunting – Request for recusal of Judge
by litigants – Held: If requests for recusal are acceded to for the
asking, litigants will be unscrupulously taking over the roster
making powers of the Chief Justice and that would tantamount to
interference with the judicial system, by the mighty to have a
particular Bench by employing several means and putting all kinds
of pressures from all angles all around – Moreover, recusal in such
unjustified circumstances, would become the norm – If recusal is
made, it would tantamount to giving room to unscrupulous litigant
to have a Judge of their choice who can share the views which are
to be canvassed by them – No such right can be given to any person
under the said guise – Justice Delivery System.   (Arun Mishra, J.)
‘Judicial Recusal’

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