No litigant or third party has right to intervene, comment on judge's recusal: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday held that when a judge recuses from hearing a case, no litigant or third party has any right to intervene, comment or enquire about the same because the discretion of the judge in hearing or not hearing a matter is absolute [Sherry George v Govt. of NCT of Delhi]..Justice Asha Menon said that an investigation into the cause or reason for recusal by a judge would amount to interference with the course of justice and therefore, the recusal has to be respected even if a detailed reason for the same has not been spelt out."It would be proper to hold that an investigation into the cause/reason for recusal by a judge, particularly, by a litigant, would itself be an interference with the course of justice. When a judge recuses, no litigant or third party has any right to intervene, comment or enquire. The recusal has to be respected, whether a reason has been spelt-out in detail or not. Had a judge refrained from giving a reason for recusal, no one can insist on the judge making such disclosures. The discretion of the concerned judge in the matter of disclosure is absolute,” the single-judge said..The High Court was dealing with a petition for setting aside the order dated July 16, 2020, by the Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act) and for registration of a first information report (FIR) against some unknown persons who had tried to influence a Metropolitan Magistrate that led to his recusal.The Court was told that the petitioner is the director of a company and the proprietor of another company had filed an application under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) against her that is pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Saket Courts.The petitioner alleged that the said complainant had sought to influence the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate and it has been recorded in the order as well. She then approached the local police station and lodged a complaint seeking investigation into the allegations that someone was trying to influence the court but no FIR was registered. An application under Section 156(3) of the CrPC was therefore moved before the Special Judge (PC Act) for investigation into the allegations.This application was dismissed when the judge held that no investigation was warranted as the identity of the accused persons was well within the knowledge of the complainant, and the assistance of the police was not required to collect evidence at that stage.However, the special judge allowed the petitioner to lead evidence in the complaint..Justice Menon said that by the application under Section 156(3) of the CrPC the petitioner was seeking full disclosures by forcing the police to make inquiries from the Metropolitan Magistrate as to what led to his recusal.The High Court said that it is for the magistrate to decide whether any contempt or other criminal proceedings should be initiated or not. Since, the magistrate did not find any need to do so, it is not for the petitioner to question that decision, the present order added.“It would be setting out on a precipice, if a Judge who recuses for disclosed or undisclosed reasons, was then sought to be examined on oath in a complaint case which a litigant before the court chooses to initiate, on the pretext of enquiring into a possible corruption case, and to be compelled to make disclosures under oath that in its considered view were not required while recusing,” the High Court said..It, therefore, used its powers under Section 482 of the CrPC and quashed the proceedings before the Special Judge.It dismissed the present application challenging the Special Judge order and also imposed costs of ₹10,000 on the petitioner..Advocates Ankur Mittal and Abhay Gupta appeared for the petitioner, Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) Manjeet Arya appeared for the State. .[Read Order]