Recusal of Judges: Cal HC notes that Court should not bow down to browbeating by litigants

While rejecting a plea made for the recusal of judges in a bail case, the Calcutta High Court recently made it a point to emphasize that the Court ought not to bow down to browbeating tactics employed by litigants in hopes of finding more favourable judges..The Bench of Justices Ravi Krishan Kapur and Joymalya Bagchi observed,.“It is the constitutional duty of every Judge to decide matters not only ‘without favour’ but also ‘without fear’. Insinuations of bias or prejudice founded on irrelevant or flimsy grounds ought to be dealt with sternly and the court ought not to bow down to such instances of browbeating and recuse itself on the plea of remaining insouciant. .A Judge dealing with a lis is required not only to see that the cause is dealt with fairly but also has to ensure that the judicial process is insulated from the machinations of scheming parties and the majesty of justice is preserved.”.Placing reliance on the case of Supreme Court Advocates-on-record Association v. Union of India, it was noted that it is the duty of a Court to decide a plea of recusal on merits and not release a matter on the mere asking of a litigant..The Court was constrained to reiterate these principles while dealing with a plea made by an Advocate seeking the recusal of the judges in a case where he had applied for bail..The petitioner-Advocate had initially been granted bail by an oral order dictated by the Bench on May 18. However, bail had been granted on the mistaken assumption that all other co-accused in the case were also given bail. When it was brought to the notice of the Court that this was not the case, the Bench withdrew the order..This oral order was withdrawn before it was signed. Further, it posted the matter for hearing in June, after the Court vacation, to grant the petitioner another opportunity to present his case. This was because the petitioner was not present in court when the Court had withdrawn the order on coming to know of the error..When the matter came up before the High Court on June 5, the Court was informed that the case proceedings were due to be shifted to another trial Court. In view of this information, the High Court adjourned the case before it by two weeks. In the meanwhile, the trial court tasked to hear the case also granted adjournments. On June 20, the trial posted the case for June 25..On the same day, i.e. June 20, the High Court was also due to hear the bail plea. However, in view of the latest adjournment, the Court posted the matter for July 3, with a direction that a report be submitted on the “progress of trial” on the next date..When the trial court took up the matter on June 25, it proceeded to frame the charges in the case..In this factual background, the advocate-petitioner cited the following grounds to argue that the Bench was biased against him:.The Bench withdrew their oral order granting him bail and thereafter declined to grant him bailThe Bench used the expression “progress of trial” in referring to the proceedings before the trial court before the trial had begun. This, in turn, prompted the trial court to frame charges on the next date of hearing, to the disadvantage of the advocate-petitioner..The Court, however, did not find any merit in these contentions as valid grounds for recusal. Rather, the Court noted that the petitioner-Advocate had only acted to unnecessarily delay his case and thus circumvent justice..“…the conduct of the petitioner in seeking adjournments before the trial court on one plea or the other and thereafter belatedly raising the instant plea for recusal clearly exposes his intention to unnecessarily delay the proceeding…..…A party to a lis particularly an advocate as in the present case who seeks to circumvent the judicial process through various subterfuges of delay and/or belated pleas of recusal ought not to be encouraged by a mechanical acceptance of such plea on its face value but a deeper scrutiny as to its tenability in law and in fact is necessary before it is accepted and acted upon.”.The Court proceeded to dismiss the plea alleging bias as totally unfounded both in law and in fact..Read the judgment: