NGT rejects transfer plea flagging appointment of judge's son as amicus curiae

The National Green Tribunal (NGT) recently rejected a plea seeking the transfer of a case from a Bench headed by Justice Sudhir Agarwal citing concerns over potential bias and procedural delays. [Naveen Kumar v Union of India]

A Coram of Justice Sudhir Agarwal and Dr Afroz Ahmad dismissed the allegations on thee ground that the same amounted to "forum shopping" and "Bench hunting."

The Tribunal emphasized that mere allegations or complaints could not justify a recusal, particularly when unsupported by cogent reasons.

"This is a selective approach since in other matters IA applicant has no hitch in appearing before this bench. It shows that this IA lacks bona-fide and not based on cogent reasons. This kind of practice normally in Judicial Institutions is well-known and called as ‘Forum Shopping’ or 'Bench Hunting,'" the Court said.

The plea was filed by advocate Gaurav Kumar Bansal in a matter related to water pollution in Ludhiana.

As per the plea, Bansal's concerns stemmed from the appointment of advocate Gaurav Agarwal, son of Justice Sudhir Agarwal, as amicus curiae in multiple NGT cases despite not practicing regularly before NGT.

The application emphasized that Agarwal has no significant experience in environmental law and further questioned why Justice Agarwal did not recuse himself from the matters when they were heard by him.

In addition to concerns over potential bias, the application also alleged delays in court proceedings due to Justice Agarwal’s late arrivals to the tribunal.

It was claimed that Justice Agarwal often began hearings well after the scheduled time of 10:30 am, disrupting effective functioning of the Tribunal.

The applicant further stated despite complaints to chairperson Justice Prakash Shrivastava regarding the late arrivals, no corrective measures were taken.

In its order, the Tribunal noted that whenever there is reasonable apprehension of bias with facts to justify the apprehension, the proper course of action would be for the presiding officer to recuse from the matter.

It cited the Supreme Court's rulings in Indore Development Authority vs. Manohar Lal & Ors. and State of Punjab vs. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar to highlight that bias must be assessed based on whether a reasonable person would have apprehensions of partiality, not based on subjective perceptions of a party.

In this backdrop, the Tribunal determined that Bansal was 'forum shopping or 'Bench hunting' as he had no objection to appearing before the same Bench in other matters.

The Tribunal also dismissed the applicant’s concerns regarding advocate Gaurav Agarwal as amicus curiae, clarifying that such appointments are judicial decisions made in the interest of justice and did not indicate partisanship.

In response to the allegations that Agarwal did not have experience practicing before the NGT, the NGT pointed out that he had been practicing before the Tribunal since 2016.

While rejecting the recusal request, the Tribunal directed that the matter be listed before the Bench presided over by Justice Arun Kumar Tyagi, as the matter had been part-heard by that Bench.

It concluded that the Registry erred in listing the matter before the current Bench without considering previous orders.

[Read Order]