2012 (10) TMI 333 - SC - Indian Laws

Judicial - Suspicion of unfairness and bias It is apparent that the fact of earlier recusal of the case at the trial by learned Shri Justice S.N. Dhingra himself, was not brought to his notice in the revision petition before the High Court by either of the parties to the case. Therefore, Shri Justice S.N. Dhingra, owing to inadvertence regarding his earlier recusal, has dismissed the revision petition by the impugned Judgment. In our opinion, the impugned Judgment, passed by Shri Justice S.N. Dhingra subsequent to his recusal at trial stage for personal reasons, is against the principle of natural justice and fair trial. - matter restored before High Court.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against Judgment and Order of High Court | Recusal of Judge from trial | Principle of natural justice and fair trial | Application of the real likelihood of bias test

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed against the Judgment and Order of the High Court of Delhi, which dismissed the revision petition against the Judgment and Order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge. The matter was intended to be remanded to the High Court for fresh disposal without delving into the factual matrix.

2. The case involved the recusal of the trial judge, who withdrew from hearing the matter due to personal reasons. The case was then transferred to another judge for trial, leading to the accused being acquitted. The appellant, being dissatisfied, filed a revision petition which was dismissed by the High Court.

3. The Supreme Court noted that the trial judge, who had recused himself earlier, was unaware of this fact during the revision petition before the High Court. The Court opined that the subsequent judgment by the same judge post-recusal went against the principles of natural justice and fair trial.

4. The Court emphasized that judges must act impartially and without bias to ensure fair proceedings. Citing previous cases, the Court highlighted the importance of avoiding any reasonable apprehension of bias in judicial decisions to maintain the integrity of the legal process.

5. Referring to various legal precedents, the Court reiterated the need for judges to be free from bias or the perception of bias in their decisions. The test of real likelihood of bias was emphasized, stating that justice must not only be done but also appear to be done to maintain public trust in the judiciary.

6. Considering the principles of natural justice and fairness, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's Judgment and Order and remanded the matter for fresh disposal, clarifying that no opinion on the case's merits was expressed. The decision aimed to uphold the integrity of the judicial process and ensure a fair trial for all parties involved.