The Supreme Court's 1997 Resolution - Restatement of Values of Judicial Life - mandating a judge to disclose his shareholding interest and proceed with hearing the case only if there is no objection from the parties does not accurately restate the legal position and should be revised for the following reasons.

First, the 1997 Resolution is inconsistent with the law laid down by the Supreme Court.  Holding shares in a company is a clear case of pecuniary interest and the Supreme Court itself right from 1952 has affirmed the principle that a pecuniary interest, however small, automatically disqualifies the judge. The 1997 Resolution allows the judge to proceed with the hearing of the case if the counsel for the parties does not have any objection, even if the judge has a majority or a significant shareholding in a company.  The law declared by the Supreme Court is binding and prevails over a Resolution passed by the Supreme Court.

Second, the 1997 Resolution relies upon the waiver by the counsel to shield the judge from any imputation of bias. When the discretionary powers of the judges have tremendously increased over the years, trusting counsel - who routinely appear before the same judges in several cases day in and day out - to object to their participation in one case is not exactly an ideal mechanism to protect the high image of the Indian judiciary.

Raveendran's final recusal from the bench raises a larger question. Should a judge recuse merely because a party before the Court is a client of the law firm which employs the judges relative, irrespective of whether the relative is actually involved in advising the client? By this standard, any judge who has a relative working in a leading law firm would be barred from hearing any case of the client of that firm. While Raveendran's offer of recusal has diluted the recusal standard in case of pecuniary interest, Raveendran's recusal has extended the standard in case of non-pecuniary interest. 

Vivek Reddy is a practicing lawyer at the Supreme Court of India and the Andhra Pradesh High Court. 

Pages    1 | 2    Show Full Article