2019 (3) TMI 1623 - HC - Indian Laws

Jurisdiction of a Judge - transfer petition - financial interest - HELD THAT - In the present case, this fact was brought before the learned District Judge that earlier his father, being the Additional Advocate General of the State, had appeared for the State in respect of the same subject matter. In my view, this cannot be and should not be ground for recusal from the case. The District Judge, at no point of time, was involved in any manner with the case. He himself was not appearing for any of the parties. It was his father who was appearing for the respondent, that too, for the State as State Counsel/Additional Advocate General. In fact, in many cases the Counsel for the State appear on behalf of the State. They do not even remember in which case they appeared for the State. It is the duty of a Judge to hear every matter placed before him without fear or favour. A Judge can recuse when he or his family members interest is involved in the case. He can also recuse when his close relative is a party in the lis. He can recuse from a case where one of the parties is known to him and is closely associated with him. He can also recuse when he had earlier as an Advocate appeared for one of the parties. A Judge can also recuse where he had earlier given legal opinion in the matter or has a financial interest in the litigation. Application rejected.

Summary

Issues:
1. Recusal of a judge due to family member's prior involvement in a case.
2. Application of legal principles regarding a judge's disqualification.
3. Comparison with previous legal precedents on judges' recusal.

Analysis:
Issue 1: The District Judge, Special Division-I, Sikkim at Gangtok, recused himself from a case after learning that his father, a Senior Advocate who had earlier appeared for the State in a related matter. The District Judge referred the case to the High Court, raising concerns about proceeding further due to his family connection to the case.

Issue 2: The High Court considered the grounds for recusal as per legal principles established by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It was noted that a judge can be disqualified from hearing a case if they have a financial interest in the outcome. In cases where the interest is non-financial, an inquiry is required to determine disqualification based on the principles of "real danger" or "reasonable apprehension."

Issue 3: The judgment referenced a previous case, Trishala vs. M.V. Sundar Raj, where the Supreme Court held that a judge's prior role as a Standing Counsel for a party does not automatically disqualify them from hearing cases involving that party. Drawing from this precedent, the High Court concluded that the District Judge's father's previous involvement as State Counsel did not necessitate the District Judge's recusal, as he had no direct involvement in the case and his father acted in his private capacity.

In the final analysis, the High Court rejected the application for recusal, emphasizing a judge's duty to hear all matters impartially unless there is a direct conflict of interest involving the judge, their family members, or prior professional engagements. The Transfer Petition was disposed of, and the Order was directed to be sent to the concerned parties and the District Judge for further action.