When can a judge opt out of a case? - Pragnya IAS Academy - News Analysis.

When can a judge opt out of a case?.

What is the process of recusal in court? Do the reasons have to be specified?

The story so far: On February 12, Supreme Court judge Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar recused himself from hearing a petition filed by Sara Abdullah Pilot, sister of former Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister Omar Abdullah, against the government’s move to charge him under the Public Safety Act. The case was finally heard by another bench. Recusal usually takes place when a judge has a conflict of interest or has a prior association with the parties in the case.
What are the rules on recusals?

There are no written rules on the recusal of judges from hearing cases listed before them in constitutional courts. It is left to the discretion of a judge. The reasons for recusal are not disclosed in an order of the court. Some judges orally convey to the lawyers involved in the case their reasons for recusal, many do not. Some explain the reasons in their order. The decision rests on the conscience of the judge. At times, parties involved raise apprehensions about a possible conflict of interest. For example, if the case pertains to a company in which the judge holds stakes, the apprehension would seem reasonable. Similarly, if the judge has, in the past, appeared for one of the parties involved in a case, the call for recusal may seem right. A recusal inevitably leads to delay. The case goes back to the Chief Justice, who has to constitute a fresh Bench.
Should the reasons be put on record?
In his separate opinion in the National Judicial Appointments Commission judgment in 2015, Justice (now retired) Kurian Joseph, who was a member of the Constitution Bench, highlighted the need for judges to give reasons for recusal as a measure to build transparency. “It is the constitutional duty, as reflected in one’s oath, to be transparent and accountable, and hence, a judge is required to indicate reasons for his recusal from a particular case,” Justice Kurian wrote. One of his companion judges on the Constitution Bench, Justice (retired) Madan B. Lokur, agreed that specific rules require to be framed on recusal.
The two judges were referring to senior advocate Fali Nariman’s plea to Justice J.S. Khehar, who was then in line to be the next Chief Justice, to recuse himself. But Justice Khehar refused to recuse himself though he admitted that Mr. Nariman’s plea left him in an “awkward predicament”. Justice Khehar reasoned that he did not recuse himself for fear of leaving an impression that he was “scared”.
What happened in the Judge Loya and Assam detention centres cases?
In 2018, petitioners in the Judge Loya case sought the recusal of Supreme Court judges, Justices A.M. Khanwilkar and D.Y. Chandrachud, from the Bench as they both hailed from the Bombay High Court. The case banked on the written statements of two judges from that High Court, both saying that Judge Loya’s death was from natural causes. The court refused the request and called it a “wanton attack”. Recusal, the court observed, would mean abdication of duty. Maintaining institutional civilities are distinct from the “fiercely independent role of the judge as adjudicator”, the court explained.
In May 2019, in the middle of a hearing of a PIL filed by activist Harsh Mander about the plight of inmates in Assam’s detention centres, the then-Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi was asked to recuse himself. In a lengthy order, Justice Gogoi said a litigant cannot seek recusal of the judge. “Judicial functions, sometimes, involve performance of unpleasant and difficult tasks, which require asking questions and soliciting answers to arrive at a just and fair decision. If the assertions of bias as stated are to be accepted, it would become impossible for a judge to seek clarifications and answers,” the court observed.
Why did Justice Mishra argue against recusal?
Refusing to recuse himself from the Constitution Bench hearing a question of law on the Indore Development Authority v. Manohar Lal (the issues involved in the case related to a reading of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013), Justice Arun Mishra said acquiescing to the wishes of parties to recuse himself would sound the death-knell for judicial independence. The petitioners had objected to Justice Mishra leading the Constitution Bench which was hearing a question of law challenging his own earlier judgment in the case. But Justice Mishra said it would be a “grave blunder” on his part to bow out. (Source: The Hindu)


The above Article can also be read using the link below:

When can a judge opt out of a case?.

How is a Supreme Court judge to be probed? - Pragnya IAS Academy - News analysis.

How is a Supreme Court judge to be probed?.

What is the mechanism in place to examine allegations of misconduct against members of the higher judiciary?.

The allegations made by a former Supreme Court employee against the Chief Justice of India have brought the focus on the mechanism that exists to examine charges of misconduct against members of the higher judiciary. What exactly is the procedure involved and how was it devised?

How are allegations of misconduct against judges of High Courts and the Supreme Court dealt with?
Allegations of misconduct against serving judges of the superior judiciary, that is, the various high courts and the Supreme Court, are dealt with through an ‘in-house procedure’. Most complaints may pertain to judicial conduct, and may be at the behest of parties aggrieved by the outcome of their cases. However, some may concern the personal conduct of judges. Two purposes are served by the adoption of an internal procedure to deal with such complaints: when the allegations are examined by the judge’s peers, outside agencies are kept out, and the independence of the judiciary is maintained. Second, awareness about the existence of a mechanism to examine such complaints will preserve the faith of the people in the impartiality and independence of the judicial process. The in-house procedure envisages that false and frivolous allegations can be rejected at an early stage and only those that are not baseless, and may require a deeper probe, are taken up for inquiry.
What is the origin of the ‘in-house’ procedure?
The idea of self-regulation as a method by which allegations of misconduct against judges can be approached came up first in a 1995 case concerning the then Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court. The Chief Justice resigned amidst an uproar caused by reports that he had been paid unjustifiably high amounts by a publisher. In a case relating to this allegation, the Supreme Court outlined the procedure that may be adopted in such situations. Until then, misconduct on the part of superior court judges was perceived as something that only Parliament could deal with through the procedure for removal of judges given in the Constitution. However, the court made a distinction between ‘impeachable behaviour’ and bad behaviour. Later, in 1997, when Justice J.S. Verma took over as Chief Justice of India, he took up the issue. He circulated a document titled ‘Restatement of Values of Judicial Life’, a guide containing the essential elements of ideal behaviour for judges so that their independence and impartiality are beyond reproach. The Full Court passed a resolution that an ‘in-house procedure’ would be adopted for action against judges for acts of commission or omission that go against accepted values of judicial life.
When was the in-house procedure adopted?
A five-judge committee was formed to devise the procedure. The report of the committee was adopted by a resolution of the Full Court on December 15, 1999. This procedure has been adhered to since then. However, the in-house procedure was not in the public domain for many years. In 2014, a Supreme Court Bench directed the court’s registry to make the in-house procedure public for the sake of transparency. The court was then dealing with a serious allegation made by a woman district and sessions court judge that she faced harassment from a sitting judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court.
How does the in-house procedure work? What are the various steps?
When a complaint is received against a High Court judge, the Chief Justice concerned has to examine it. If it is frivolous or concerns a judicial matter, she may just file the complaint and inform the Chief Justice of India. If she considers it serious, she should get a response from the judge concerned. If she is satisfied with the response and feels no further action is required, she may close the matter and keep the CJI informed. However, if the CJI feels a deeper probe is needed, she should send the complaint as well as the judge’s response to the CJI, with her own comments, for further action.
The procedure is the same if the CJI receives the complaint directly. The comments of the high court Chief Justice, the judge concerned and the complaint would be considered by the CJI. If a deeper probe is required, a three-member committee, comprising two Chief Justices from other High Courts and one High Court judge, has to be formed. The committee will hold a fact-finding inquiry at which the judge concerned would be entitled to appear. It is not a formal judicial proceeding and does not involve lawyers or examination or cross-examination of witnesses.
If the charge is against a high court Chief Justice, the same procedure of getting the person’s response is followed by the CJI. If a deeper probe is deemed necessary, a three-member committee comprising a Supreme Court judge and two Chief Justices of other High Courts will be formed.
If the charge is against a Supreme Court judge, the committee would comprise three Supreme Court judges. There is no separate provision in the in-house procedure to deal with complaints against the CJI.
What are the possible outcomes from the inquiry committee?
If it finds that there is substance in the allegations, the committee can either hold that the misconduct is serious enough to warrant removal from office, or that it is not so serious as to warrant removal. In the former case, it will call for initiation of proceedings to remove the judge. The judge concerned would be advised to resign or take voluntary retirement. If the judge is unwilling to quit, the Chief Justice of the High Court concerned would be advised to withdraw judicial work from him, and the President of India and the Prime Minister would be informed of the situation. Such an action may clear the way for Parliament to begin the political process for impeachment. In case, the committee finds substance in the allegation, but it is not grave enough to warrant removal from office, the judge concerned would be advised accordingly, and the committee’s report will be placed on record. (Source: The Hindu)


The above Article can also be read using the link below:

How is a Supreme Court judge to be probed?.

Average of 4,500 cases per judge pending in High Courts, says Govt - Pragnya IAS Academy - News Analysis.

Average of 4,500 cases per judge pending in High Courts, says Govt.

From January 1, Telangana has its own high court, taking the number of high courts in the country to 25.

Each high court judge is saddled with nearly 4,500 pending cases, according to the Law Ministry.
At the same time, each judge of the subordinate judiciary has nearly 1,300 cases pending, the same data shows.

Going by the number of cases pending in high courts and the lower courts, the ministry came up with the average cases pending per judge based on the sanctioned strength.
According to the National Judicial Data Grid, at the end of 2018, 2.91 crore cases were pending with the district and subordinate courts. In the 24 high courts, 47.68 lakh cases were pending.
From January 1, Telangana has its own high court, taking the number of high courts in the country to 25.
The data states that while 4,419 cases are pending per judge in the high courts, 1,288 are pending with each lower court judge.
It says that while the sanctioned strength of the subordinate courts is 22,644, the working strength is 17,509 -- a shortage of 5,135 judicial officers.
Similarly, in the high courts, the sanctioned strength is 1,079, the working strength is 695 -- a shortfall of 384 judges.
The data was collated for parliamentary use.
Successive law ministers have been writing to chief justices of high courts urging them to fill up vacancies in the lower courts.
Incumbent Ravi Shankar Prasad recently urged the chief justices of high courts to speed up the recruitment of judicial officers for the lower judiciary, as according to him, one of the main reasons for high pendency was the inordinate delay in filling up the vacancies of judicial officers.
The minister urged the chief justices to hold timely examination and interviews to recruit judges for lower courts. (Source: The Business Standard)


The above Article can also be read using the link below:

Average of 4,500 cases per judge pending in High Courts, says Govt.