Clarification regarding Recusal Watch piece dated February 3

Last week, we had published an edition of our Recusal Watch series, which keeps a tab on recusals of Supreme Court judges. In that piece, we had raised some questions regarding the change of bench hearing the case related to the applicability of the RTI Act to the Goa Governor’s office.

Specifically, we had highlighted the fact that the case was initially heard by a bench of Justices Kurian Joseph and Amitava Roy, and then subsequently listed and disposed of by a bench of Justices Arun Mishra and Amitava Roy last week, for no apparent reason.

However, the reason for the change of bench has now come to light, thanks to clarification by the Supreme Court Registry.

In a letter addressed to Bar & Bench, Registrar Ramkumar Choubey has highlighted,

“The guidelines for listing are available in public domain on the official website of the Supreme Court of India under the Menu “Handbook on Practice and Procedure and Office Procedure”…It is categorically stated that if the First Coram is not available on a particular day the case shall be listed before the judge constituting the Second Coram.

The Special Leave Petition was listed before a Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr. Justice Pinaki Chandra Ghose and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitava Roy on 27.9.2016. After the superannuation of Hon’ble Mr. Justice Pinaki Chandra Ghose on 27.5.2017, the matter was required, under the above listing guidelines, to be attached to any Court in which Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitava Roy continued to sit. Hence on 6.7.2017, the matter was listed before a Bench presided over by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arun Mishra (with whom Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitava Roy was sitting). Following the same principle, on 5.12.2017, it was listed before a Bench presided over by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph (with whom Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitava Roy was sitting). On 22.1.2018, the matter was again listed before a Bench of Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arun Mishra and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitava Roy…

The principle which is followed is that in the event of the retirement of the presiding Judge (referred to as First Coram in the listing guidelines), to which the case has been assigned for admission or motion hearing, the case will continue to be allotted to any Bench in which the companion Hon’ble Judge (referred to as Second Coram in the listing guidelines) has been assigned as per the extant roster.”

In light of the same, we would like to issue a clarification to our readers regarding this specific oversight.

We will continue to track the recusals of Supreme Court judges through our Recusal Watch series, while endeavouring to avoid such mistakes in the future.