The Rajasthan High Court on Wednesday said that a lawyer cannot insist on recusal of a judge or transfer of case to another bench [Master Arjun Choudhary v Chairman]..Justice Vijay Bishnoi took exception to the conduct of a counsel Arti Kumari Gupta who sought transfer of a case to another Bench.The single-judge said that the conduct of the counsel was highly objectionable and contemptuous.“This Court is of the opinion that no counsel can insist the Court not to hear the matter on the ground that this Court is not able to take up the matter despite diligent of the fact that more than 100 cases are listed today and several advocates got their matters marked as urgent,” the order passed by the Court stated..The issue arose when the counsel mentioned the matter at the time of the Court assembling and stated that since the Court was not in a position to hear the matter, the same should be transferred to another Bench.Justice Bishnoi recorded that he attempted to convince the counsel that the matter would be taken up in its own turn, however she continued her arguments and insisted that the Court should transfer the case to another Bench..The counsel also stated that the Court had previously made oral remarks against the merits of the case. Responding to this submission, the Court opined that no counsel could insist to recuse the Court from hearing the matter.Despite this, without making any further comment on the conduct of the counsel, the Court directed that the matter be placed before the Chief Justice’s Bench for orders..[Read Order]
The Rajasthan High Court on Wednesday said that a lawyer cannot insist on recusal of a judge or transfer of case to another bench [Master Arjun Choudhary v Chairman]..Justice Vijay Bishnoi took exception to the conduct of a counsel Arti Kumari Gupta who sought transfer of a case to another Bench.The single-judge said that the conduct of the counsel was highly objectionable and contemptuous.“This Court is of the opinion that no counsel can insist the Court not to hear the matter on the ground that this Court is not able to take up the matter despite diligent of the fact that more than 100 cases are listed today and several advocates got their matters marked as urgent,” the order passed by the Court stated..The issue arose when the counsel mentioned the matter at the time of the Court assembling and stated that since the Court was not in a position to hear the matter, the same should be transferred to another Bench.Justice Bishnoi recorded that he attempted to convince the counsel that the matter would be taken up in its own turn, however she continued her arguments and insisted that the Court should transfer the case to another Bench..The counsel also stated that the Court had previously made oral remarks against the merits of the case. Responding to this submission, the Court opined that no counsel could insist to recuse the Court from hearing the matter.Despite this, without making any further comment on the conduct of the counsel, the Court directed that the matter be placed before the Chief Justice’s Bench for orders..[Read Order]