No one can compel a Judge to recuse from a case: Madras High Court

Justice S Vaidyanathan of the Madras High Court recently emphasised that it is for a judge to decide whether or not he should recuse from a case. Pertinent observations to this effect were made while passing an order against land encroachers..The petitioners, an association by the name of Annai Indira Gandhi Hut Dwellers, had approached the Court against the government’s decision to allot certain land in Chennai to the Railways for development..On examination of facts, the Court found that the petitioners had approached the Court with unclean hands. Following an inspection, it was found that the land was being used for commercial purposes by the petitioners, contrary to their claims that it was residential area. Holding that the Court cannot aid in perpetuating the illegalities of the Association, the judge dismissed the petition..Notably, before parting with the case, Justice Vaidyanathan made it a point to emphasise that a judge cannot be compelled to recuse himself from a case..In this case, the petitioner association had written to the Chief Justice last January, stating that Justice Vaidyanathan should recuse himself from hearing the matter. This, despite the fact that the matter had been heard at length, with sittings extending beyond court hours at the request of the petitioner association on certain days..Justice Vaidyanathan noted that the catalyst for such a letter stemmed from the judge’s decision to order an inspection of the impugned land areas. The said inspection would inevitably reveal that the petitioners had illegally used the land, and in some cases even sold the land without proper title. The judge opined that the fear of this discovery had prompted the petitioner association to call for his recusal from the case..Responding to this attempt at prompting his recusal, the judge firstly highlights that there was no basis for calling for the same..“In this case, I have never shown any partiality to anyone and if the decision is rendered in favour of the petitioners, certainly, it would amount to partiality in favour of the petitioner, as from the facts discussed supra, the violators/Land Grabbers who are trying to squat in the properties from 2003 and did not want anyone to render a decision against the person who has no benefit of the impugned G.O.Ms.No.649. There is no question of ‘bias’ in this case.”.Justice Vaidyanathan then goes on to observe that it is the judge who gets to take the final call on whether he should recuse himself or not. The order states,.“Ultimately, it is for the Judge to decide as to whether I should recuse from hearing the case or not, and no one can compel a Judge to recuse from hearing the case, when the Judge has nothing personal in the matter and posing of questions during the arguments, is only by way of clarification and naturally, even during the course of hearing, the Court will have to pose questions, so that the party should not be put to any prejudice..… No one can compel a Judge to recuse from a case and I have to discharge my duties based on the Oath taken, more particularly in the light of the term [without] ‘fear or favour.’”.Given this position, Justice Vaidyanathan opined that the letter may constitute an interference with the judiciary. However, he left it to the Chief Justice to decide whether the same would amount to contempt of court..“…this Court is empowered to ask any question or make any observations, and ultimately, the judgment alone will speak. The petitioner who is said to have given the complaint to the Hon’ble Chief Justice, amounts to interference with the Judiciary. .Any Judge can express the view in the Open Court and ask questions by way of clarification. Whether the letter/complaint, dated 01.02.2018, given by the petitioner to the Hon’ble Chief Justice, would amount to Contempt or not, is for the Hon’ble Chief Justice to take a decision.”.Read the order: