After Justice R.V. Raveendran and Justice Markandey Katju withdrew from two separate cases involving the Mukesh Ambani owned RIL, it was Justice Kapadia's (pictured) turn to withdraw from the Vedanta matter citing he owned shares in its group company, Sterlite Industries.

Justice Kapadia quit hearing a petition filed against Vedanta Resources by a stock broker in 2007 regarding the implementation of a public offer to buy 20 percent additional stake in Sesa Goa. Justice Kapadia heads the Green Bench and constantly hears mining cases. Justice Kapadia's asset declarations states that he owns Rs. 20 Lakhs ($41,666) worth of stock market investments, but does not divulge details of his shareholding.    

In a related dispute, a Supreme Court bench headed by Chief Justice K.G. Balakrishnan had issued a contempt notice to Senior Advocate Prashant Bhushan, for having questioned Justice Kapadia's integrity. In an interview with the weekly Tehelka, Bhushan had made certain statements regarding Supreme Court Justice Kapadia's interest in a matter relating to Sterlite Industries, allegedly implying judicial impropriety. Salve, who acted as amicus curiae on the matter, felt that such careless comments by a member of the Bar was "regrettable", and requested permission to file a petition for contempt against Bhushan.

Prashant Bhushan has been one of the strongest voices in the movement for judicial accountability, and spearheads the campaign for public declaration of Judges' assets. In the interview, he had stated that Justice Kapadia heard a matter involving Vedanta Sterlite, despite owning shares in the company. However, the matter was subsequently clarified in a letter to the magazine by Senior Counsel U.U. Lalit, one of the counsels in the case, who clarified that Justice Kapadia had disclosed his shareholding and proceeded only when none of the parties had any objections to him adjudicating the matter.

Justice Kapadia will have two years as Chief Justice of India when Chief Justice K.G. Balakrishnan retires in May next year. No one seems to be taking chances as far disclosures of stock market investments are concerned. For an analysis of the Supreme Court's history of recusals, please read Vivek Reddy's column.