Allahabad High Court summons judge for religious discrimination against Muslim lawyers

The Allahabad High Court recently summoned a senior judicial officer for alleged religious discrimination against Muslim lawyers and termed his “observations regarding a particular community” a case of judicial misconduct [Mohammad Idris vs State of UP]. .The development took place during the trial of the criminal case against two Muslim clerics, Mohammad Umar Gautam and Mufti Qazi Jahangir Alam Qasmi, and others who are accused of forced religious conversion by Uttar Pradesh’s Anti-Terrorist Squad.Additional District & Sessions Judge (Special Judge NIA/ATS, Lucknow) Vivekanand Sharan Tripathi had, in January, appointed amici curiae as additional counsel to assist the Court after turning down certain Muslim lawyers' request for a brief adjournment to enable them to attend Friday prayers. The trial judge had ordered that the amici curiae would represent the accused whenever the Muslim lawyers go to attend prayers..Justice Shamim Ahmed last month had stayed the orders passed by the trial court after one of the accused moved the High Court. Following the High Court order, the trial court had allowed the Muslim lawyers to represent the accused but not decided the application for electronic evidence.In the order dated April 3, the single-judge took a strong objection to the trial court’s conduct and said the judge had failed to understand the gravity of the stay order and proceeded in a very arbitrary manner.“Unless and until the copy of the electronic evidence demanded by the applicant vide his application dated 19.01.2024 under Section 207 CrPC is not provided to the applicant, the trial court ought not to have proceeded with trial of the case, or must have given some observation in this regard but the trial court is silent,” Justice Ahmed observed..The Court also went on to comment on the trial judge’s observations with regard to the “non presence of counsel for the applicant during the trial as they belong to a certain religion…” and the consequent appointment of amici.“This shows clear discrimination on the part of the trial court on the basis of religion, which is clear violation of fundamental right enshrined in Article 15 of the Constitution of India,” the Court said.Observing that if there were other grounds they ought to have been stated in the order by the trial court, the Court further said,“It can be clearly inferred that the trial court had passed the order which is directly contrary to the terms of Article 15(1) as violating a specific constitutional prohibition. The learned Judge of the trial court has clearly discriminated one community only on the basis of religion”..The Court also opined that a judge committing misconduct by engaging in personal behaviour calls their judicial integrity into question. “A Judge, like Caesar's wife, must be above suspicion. The credibility of the judicial system is dependent upon the Judges who man it. For a democracy to thrive and the rule of law to survive, justice system and the judicial process have to be strong and every Judge must discharge his judicial functions with integrity, impartiality and intellectual honesty.’ There can be no manner of doubt that a Judge must decide the case only on the basis of the facts on record and the law applicable to the case. If a Judge decides a case for any extraneous reasons then he is not performing his duty in accordance with law.”Continuing with its earlier stay order, the Court further restrained the trial court from proceeding further with the trial against the petitioner.The Court then went on to summon the judicial officer for an explanation regarding the orders in question. “This shows judicial misconduct, which breaks down the very fibre of what is necessary for a functional judiciary-citizens who believes their judges are fair and impartial. The judiciary cannot exist without the trust and confidence of the people. Judges must, therefore, be accountable to legal and ethical standards. In holding them accountable for their behavior, judicial conduct review must be performed without invading the independence of judicial decision-making,” the Court said about trial judge's comments..On Monday, judge Tripathi appeared before the single-judge and tendered an unconditional apology. He further said he had passed the orders under misconception and will remain cautious in future.After his counsel sought some time to file a personal affidavit, the Court granted him two days and listed the matter for hearing on April 18..Advocates Mohemmed Amir Naqvi, Abhishek Singh, Ajeet Pratap Singh and Zia Ul Qayuim represented the petitioner.Advocate Gaurav Mehrotra represented the Judge Vivekanand Sharan Tripathi.Advocate Shiv Nath Tilhari represented the State. .[Read Order]