"Argument to browbeat judges, create fear complex:" Andhra Pradesh High Court comes down on State for seeking recusal of judges

The Andhra Pradesh High Court on Thursday dismissed a plea by State government seeking recusal of two judges from a case, observing that the same was a strange contention meant to create fear complex in the minds of the judges [State of Andhra Pradesh Versus Rajadhani Rythu Parirakshana Samithi]..A Bench of Chief Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justices M Satyanarayana Murthy and DVS Somayajulu noted that once the State asked that the two judges to withdraw from hearing the matter on account of pecuniary interests, it is on the State to establish any immediate likelihood of such gains."The question of raising ground of pecuniary interest by the State on account of allotment of sites to the Judges is a strange contention not only to browbeat the judges in discharging their duties but also to create fear complex in the minds of the judges," the Court said.The two judges whose recusal was sought were Justices Murthy and Somayajulu. The Andhra Pradesh High Court has been hearing challenges to the bills (including the decision to repeal them) paving way for the creation of 3 capitals for the State.The present application was filed in the said case by the State through its Chief Secretary. The State had sought the recusal of the two judges as they had been allotted plots by the government at Nelapadu, which is within the limits of the Amaravati Metropolitan Region Development Authority.Given the possibility of a rise in the land prices post the litigation if Amaravati remains the sole capital, the judges have financial interest in the subject matter, the State submitted."Even without looking into clauses in the allotment letter and G.O.Ms.No.34 dated 24.01.2019 she (Chief Secretary) made such allegations to demean the judicial institution in the eye of public, slinging mud on the credibility of very judicial institution itself" the order said. The Bench added the State should not act like a private counsel and call upon two out of the three judges hearing the writ petition, to recuse. The Court also came down on the petitioner for not stating anything about the quantum of pecuniary gains likely for the judges."If the alleged pecuniary interest likely to be gained by the Judge is minimum, it can also be ignored ...The petitioner made bald allegations in an irresponsible manner to tarnish the image of very institution, particularly the judges," the Court said..The Andhra Pradesh government had earlier informed the High Court in November that the decision to have three administrative capitals for the State was being withdrawn. Amaravati will remain the sole capital of the State, the Advocate General of Andhra Pradesh Subrahmanyam Sriram had stated.The State thus repealed the AP Decentralisation and Inclusive Development of All Regions Bill, and the 2020, and the AP Capital Region Development Authority (Repeal) Bill, 2020. These had received the Governor's assent back in July 2020 and had paved the way for the State to have three capitals - executive capital at Visakhapatnam, legislative capital at Amaravati and judicial capital at Kurnool.In the present plea for recusal, the High Court at the outset noted that certain background facts were not mentioned in the affidavit. For example, the fact that the purpose of purchases of the plots, paid for by the judges themselves, is to facilitate people to settle at Amaravati only at the instance of the government, was missing.It rejected the contentions of the State on financial interest, pointing out that:The judges cannot sell the plots in question;The decision for their allocation is not a matter of the litigation;The only thing to be decided in the original writ is whether to uphold or repeal the State's choice of having three capitals. The High Court emphasised that everything associated with the discharge of their duties as well as perks, including their pens with which the write and salaries, are provided by the State. Therefore, it is difficult to conclude that judges have pecuniary interest in the transaction specially when in most litigation the State is a party. "Therefore, the question of raising ground of pecuniary interest by the State on account of allotment of sites to the Judges is a strange contention not only to browbeat the Judges in discharging their duties but also to create fear complex in the minds of the judges," the Bench observed. The Bench thus came down heavily on the recusal request, stating that there is no direct pecuniary interest established. "If purchase of 600 Sq.yards house plot from the government itself creates a pecuniary interest, most of the judges in the High Court i.e. 14 judges, who were allotted house sites are not entitled to decide any lis, where the State is a party," the Court said. The High Court said such demands amount to interfering with the power of Chief Justice and causes a dent to judicial independence.The Bench mentioned that the State had not objected to the presence of the two judges earlier in other matters regarding the capital, nor when the instant plea was first listed before a Bench led by the then Chief Justice.The High Court also pointed out that Justice Murthy is likely to retire within a few months and is not bothered about the result of the petition given there is no possibility of holding Court after that, and Justice Somayajulu is likely to retire a year thereafter. "Therefore, both are unmindful of the result of the lis pending before us and we are bound to discharge our duties without fear, favour, fervour or ill-will and as per the oath we took under Article 219 of the Constitution of India," the Bench stressed. .[Read Order]