Recusal of judge from hearing cases

 When we refer to a judge, it is not always a HC or SC judge. In normal parlance, any presiding officer of a court is a judge.

We have created an aura of invincibility around judges. We are overawed by their present. Did they represent the King? Why have we been calling them “My Lord”, “Your Worship”, “Your Honour” etc. etc. We are adept in aping and carrying on the legacy handed down to us by our rulers.

These euphemisms have put them in a class apart. Please come down to earth and accept the simple fact that the judges are no more than normal human beings with all the failings that one can possess. Therefore, we should clear our mind that they are unbeatable, unconquerable, unshakable, indomitable, impregnable, unassailable, insuperable, indestructible, supreme and not vulnerable. Remember that they were at the bar for most of the time and have suddenly not imbibed all these qualities.

Can anyone elucidate as to why judges have discarded the Wig? Why not wigs now?

Criminal court judges and barristers argued (in England)  that the horsehair headgear confers a degree of anonymity, protecting them from confrontations outside court with criminals, and adds to the dignity of court proceedings, helping to keep order. Then why were they discarded once worn by our judges?

In the late 17th century, during the reign of Charles II, wigs became essential wear in society. The fashion came from the court of Louis XIV. Wig is short for periwig, which derives from the French perruque.  When wigs went out of fashion during the reign of George III, judges and barristers continued to wear them in court. Judges wore the shoulder-length "full bottom" wig, now used only for ceremonial purposes, until the 1780s, when they adopted the smaller wig with a tail at the back for civil trials. The full-bottomed wig continued to be used for criminal trials until the 1840s, when the small "bench" wig, used to this day, took over. A judge's court wig costs around £800 (Rs.64000) and full-bottomed wigs about £2,000 (Rs.16000).

Agrawal ji,

Britishers left from our country. We have our own system. Always we shouldn't compare with British or American. We ourselves denouncing our country's respect by praising foreigners.

 I respectfully disagree that we have our own system. What we are following almost to the letter and spirit is the British system to this day. I am not praising the foreigners. I am denouncing those incharge of country's affairs who are following archaic system because it now suits them. Every single law is patterned on what British followed or follow. Why the privileges of Parliament have not been defined so far? Are our laws based on Indian culture, ethos, tradition, Manu Samhita. 

I agree that we should not denounce everything that is foreign. What is good is good. We talk of Gandhi's Dandi March and abolition of tax on salt. Don't we pay tax on salt in one way or the other. Even match box is heavily taxed by levy of excise duty. Are they not used by the commonest of common? What is not taxed so far, which will be in near future, is the number of times we inhale and exhale oxygen. India has made tremendous progress. A post card costing 5 paise now costs 50 paise but the mobile call charges are Re.1 per minute throughout India. It is progress in inverse proportion. UPA Government spends 300 crores on Ministers' travel. This is some progress. CM of Karnataka spends 1.77 crores on renovation of his house. This is the shining example of our Netas following Mahatma. The story is endless. We don't want to see beyond our nose. We talk of progress but shun poverty, squalor, slums, broken roads, dark villages, lack of drinking water. When the CM of Jharkhand gobbles of NOREGA funds, we turn our eyes the other way. 

I am neither decrying India nor praising foreigners. But, I can't be oblivious to the reality of the situation as I see it.

But, I support your right to agree to disagree with me.

Agrawal ji,

It is Government servants duty to guide MPs/MLAs in right direction. Government Servants have to strictly implement the laws. Why Government servants didn't took responsibilty for today's the socio-economic situation? Government servants work for years. Why they failed do their duties within the law? Always speaking there is a political pressure. But law has given protection to the Government servant.

Blaming is easy, accepting is very hard.

 With reference to Mr. Prakash's contention, I respectfully submit the following. Every government servant when takes an oath of allegiance to the Constitution and one of the conditions of his employment is that he is liable to work in any part of India. In the marriage market, civil servants command a hefty premium. Even Netas want to give their daughters in marriage to them. Thus they develop a clout. Secondly and most importantly which civil servant dares challenge their political masters? They have a family, have a cushy job, are stationed in A class cities, their children go to the best Convent schools in the town. Now there are what are called "punishment" districts. Take for instance, Naxal infested areas of Bastar, Gadchiroli, Lalgarh, Jharkhand, A.P., and Andamans (remember Kalapani). It is very easy to transfer them at the slightest hint of opposition to their political masters' wishes. Also remember the case of Bhatia, an IAS officer of Maharashtra Cadre who was transferred 26 times in his career spanning 24 years because he tried to be "upright".

Should they still speak the truth? What protection the Constitution gives them? Netas are afraid to use Art.311 of the Constitution to remove them from service for fear of CAT and SC. Left to themselves, they won't hesitate to use this power too. Let us face the reality. Have you not read Koda's case where Secretary Tiwari, now retired, is spilling the beans that he did what was asked of him in awarding mining contracts to Koda's men. 

Seshan said: Civil servants not only not bend, they crawl before their political masters.

A good example of Recusing of Judge, is the case of Trial of Augusto Pinochet’s arrest and Trial. A recent example of the House of Lords reconsidering an earlier decision occurred in 1999, when the judgment in the case on the extradition of the former President of Chile Augusto Pinochet was overturned on the grounds that one of the Lords on the committee, Lord Hoffmann, was a Director of a charity closely allied with Amnesty International, which was a party to the appeal and had an interest to achieve a particular result. The matter was reheard by a panel of seven Lords of Appeal in Ordinary.

once Chief Justice A.M Ahmedi was asked, in an interview, what he will do if his daughters appears in a particular case listed before him....his response was he will not forget his duties as a judge and will hear the case.

there have been a lot of allegations levelled against the judiciary in India....and unfortunately the image of judiciary has gone down....whether its a matter of selection or appointment or disclosure of assests or transfer ect. on all fronts there has been a clash of opinion.

recently the Law Commission of India coined a term UNCLE JUDGES....and how uncle judges behave, I have seen that in courts....but we can not do anything.

so in my opinion the moral standards have to be very high for judiciary atleast....we refer our judges as My Lords because we see God in them who will impart justice to us...if a judge is not willing to hear a particular case, it shall be his personal decision but when he is hearing a particular case then he shall go by the words of law and not act according to the face value of a lawyer.

an office of judge shall be away from politics, which in fact is not in Inda :-).....the idea shall be providing justice.....A person may die just for once due to wrong treatment by a Doctor but if justice is denied then that person will die daily till he attains his actual death.

there have to be strong reasons why a judge is not willing to hear a particular case....if a judge is firm on his principles then there is no need say No to any case.

Well explained by Kiran ji.

Universl jurisprudence demands that he who is Intereested in the case should not participate in the proceedings. The case of  Kripak  A.K.. CASE IS AN EYE OPENER. 

Jutst Implement Article 312 of the Constitution of India for All india judicil services, who will manned the High Courts and Supreme Courts Judges like the Iindian Administrative Officers, and do away with appointment of judges. Time has come to have a fresh look at Article 312 of the Constitution of India. Many of us have missed this opportunity, but let it begin for a new era in Judiciary in spite of talking this and that!

 In our misplaced nationalism, we condemn British day in and day out yet ape them in our private life. Of course, government administration is what the British gave us.

During British time, there were judges drawn from the Indian Civil Service? It has been done away with when it was replaced with IAS. This is the big question mark. When we talk of All India Judicial Service, it is like showing red rag to a bull.

 Today's score. Add one more:

Another dramatic judge recusal Parties Had No Issue, But Justice Kapadia Goes As Nariman, Present In Court, Protests 

New Delhi: Holding shares in companies continues to lead to recusal of judges from hearing cases in the Supreme Court. The latest recusal came under unusual circumstances on Monday. 

    When the case ITC Limited Vs Norasia Container Lines, listed for the 7th time, came up before a bench headed by Justice S H Kapadia, he confessed that he held shares in the ITC and would pull out from hearing and deciding the case if any party had objection to his being part of the bench. 

    Expectedly, none of the parties had any objection. But, before Justice Kapadia could say anything noted senior advocate Fali S Nariman stood up from the back row, registered his objection and suggested that the judge recuse himself from the hearing. Justice Kapadia acceded to the suggestion without further waste of time. Justice Kapadia, who has declared that his and his wife’s investment in shares had a market value of Rs 41 lakh, may have recused from hearing the ITC case, but it certainly opens a Pandora’s box allowing lawyers unconnected with the case to raise objection to a judge hearing a particular matter. 

    Not long ago, Justice Markandey Katju had also recused himself from hearing a case under unusual circumstances. Justice Katju, heading a bench, had reserved verdict for two months in a case filed by Mukesh Ambani owned RIL against the stateowned BPCL involving a dispute over price differences in Naptha supplied to the PSU. Justice Katju had recused on the grounds that his wife held shares in the Reliance Industries. In reality, she did not hold any share in Mukesh Ambani’s RIL but had invested Rs 2 lakh in two Funds run by an Anil Ambani group company. The details of assets, liabilities and investments declared by Justice Katju, which has been put on the official website of the Supreme Court, reflected that his wife had invested in Reliance Growth Fund and Reliance Regular Savings Fund, both of which have no connection with RIL. In fact, both Reliance Growth Fund and Reliance Regular Savings Fund are run by Reliance Capital, a firm owned by the Anil Ambani group. Justice Katju did not own a single share in any of the Reliance companies, either with the elder Ambani or the younger one. 

I agree with Palnitkar Sir,

Why Mr. Ravindran kept quiet,  is he unaware of the investment made by his wife? let him question himself.

Introudction of legal aid programme has made drastic effective on the judges, they have become more public. One wonder thing I want to say High Court is directing the lower court judges to canvas about the legal aid programme in the Jatras, Market day; etc., Is it correct.

Judges had some respect in the society, now the present judges have no respect.

 Judges are unaware of the shareholding of the members of their families and their children having taken up jobs with companies which are in litigation before them and any other interest they may have. Sometimes their conscience, sometimes public knowledge and sometimes fear of exposure!

I agree with Anil regrading AIJS.