Judges recusing over wild allegations of bias will have negative impact on independence of judiciary: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court recently observed that if judges recuse themselves from hearing cases over mere allegations of bias, it would have a negative impact on the independence of the judiciary. [Suo Motu v. Yeshwanth Shenoy]..A Bench of Justices A Muhamed Mustaque and Sophy Thomas opined that it would set a bad precedent if judges, who have taken an oath to discharge their duties without bias, succumb to the "threat" made by litigants or their counsel. "A Judge, who has taken the oath of office to discharge his/her duties without fear or favour, affection or ill-will, if succumbs to the threat posed by a party litigant or his Counsel, who makes wild allegations of bias, or false implications in a case, it will have a negative impact on the independence of judiciary, and may set a bad precedent in the justice delivery system," the order stated..The Court observed that although the common man may not be able to see it, judges are able to discharge their official duties without being affected by their personal beliefs."The judicial decision of a Judge is following law that may even override his personal views. Personal views are external and excluded in consideration of a disputebefore him. The subtle distinction between a judge functioning in the official capacity of a judge of the court of law and the personal values and ethos of the judge have no manifest distinction in the understanding of a common man. However, a judge is conscious of that blurred line which allows them to distinguish the value that is to be followed in their official capacity and their personal life.".It clarified that judges should accept pleas for recusal when they have a personal interest in the case, not just because such a plea has been raised."If the judge tends to accept such a plea for recusal without any reason and on a mere plea raised by a party or a lawyer, that could be akin to accepting that the judge has lost his conscience and is vulnerable to a cause raised before him.".The Court made the observations while considering a suo motu criminal contempt case against Advocate Yeshwanth Shenoy for his alleged misconduct in the court of Justice Mary Joseph.Shenoy had moved an application seeking the recusal of Justice Thomas, raising allegations of personal bias.He objected to Justice Thomas being on the bench deciding his case since he intended to implead her as an additional respondent in a different contempt case.As an additional ground, Shenoy pointed out that he had appeared for the petitioner in a contempt case when Justice Thomas was Registrar General of the High Court. In that case, the Registrar (Judicial) acting under the instructions of the then Registrar General, had to apologise for non-compliance with an order of the Court..The Division Bench, however, noted that the other contempt petition had not even been numbered yet.Regarding Shenoy's second ground for recusal, the Bench noted that no action was taken against Justice Thomas in that case. Further, it observed that the Registrar (Judicial) being an independent functionary, an "act complained of against the Registrar (Judicial) cannot even remotely be imputed to pass on that responsibility to the Registrar General.".Finding that Shenoy had raised no substantial grounds for Justice Thomas to recuse herself, the Court rejected his application and posted the contempt case against him for further hearing on July 14."Obviously, the attempt of Adv. Yeshwanth Shenoy is to compel Justice Sophy Thomas to avoid hearing the matter by raising unnecessary allegations. Justice Sophy Thomas has no interest in that cause or in its outcome, as alleged by Adv. Yeshwanth Shenoy....".[Read Order]