The Supreme Court on Thursday took a strong exception of a petition filed seeking probe into reasons for recusal by Karnataka High Court judge Justice M Nagaprasanna recused from three matters and laying down of guidelines on the process of recusal after the case has been heard by the judge.
A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah termed the plea as highly objectionable.
"Look at your prayers...What is this? This will send wrong signals. Plea seeking guidelines is fine but you can't seek a relief directing probe into under what circumstances judge recused, it will show some other motive is there." Justice Abhay Oka remarked.
Justice Oka questioned the petioner on what was the need for such a petition when he should have sought relief only on principles.
He further added, "we understand the issue you want to raise that whether after reserving the judgement the judge recuses he is required to record reasons...But the averments cast aspersions on the judge. You say this erodes the trust of litigants and wastes judicial time. Day in day out it happens, sometimes we hear the matter then we suddenly notice that the judge knows one of the parties or we have some indirect connection and we recuse."
"What was the need for putting allegations against all private parties and casting aspersions against the judges? Manner of filing this petition highly objectionable," Justice Oka remarked.
Justice Oka further asked the petitioner if he thinks judges are so weak that Lokayukta can influence judicial outcomes?
And do you think judges are so weak? You are hinting that because of the influence of the Lokayukta the judge has recused.
"Are the judges also so weak according to you?...Lokayukta can influence judicial outcomes? Writ has been filed in oblique manner, we are not sure of motivations," Justice Oka asked.
Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah remarked that the court cannot probe the discretion of the judge.
The top court ultimately allowed the petitioner to withdraw plea and file a fresh plea. However, the bench clarified that while dismissing the plea, it has not adjudicated on whether it will be appropriate to lay guidelines for refusal.
"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 that the 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 therefore dispose of the petition as withdrawn with liberty. 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 bench ordered.