A Division Bench of the Bombay High Court has refused to entertain a petition seeking guidelines on circumstances under which a judge can recuse from a case..The Bench of Justices Shantanu Kemkar and Nitin Sambre took the view that a recusal could take place for a variety of reasons that were personal to the judge, ranging from his or her conscience, to what might constitute a conflict of interest in their minds..The Court was hearing a petition challenging a decision by the Principal District Judge, Pune, who transferred a case from one judge to another..The case was transferred after one of the four petitioners, who is also lawyer, commented on a Facebook post of SB Bahalkar, the judge before whom the matter initially came up..The issue was immediately brought to the notice of Principal District Judge SM Modak by Judge Bahalkar, who later recused from the matter after consulting with the Principal Judge. The matter was later assigned to a different judge..The High Court found no merit in the petitioners’ contention that a judge could not recuse purely because a party whose case was before him merely visited his Facebook page..Taking a strong view on this, the Bench termed the actions of the petitioner who had commented on the post tantamount to professional misconduct..Another plea by the petitioners that the Civil Appeal should not be heard either by the Principal District Judge or by the judge to whom it was transferred to, was also dismissed..The Bench held that the Principal Judge had every right to allocate judicial business and such a plea by the petitioners, especially given that one of them was an advocate, was virtually forum hunting..Read the order
A Division Bench of the Bombay High Court has refused to entertain a petition seeking guidelines on circumstances under which a judge can recuse from a case..The Bench of Justices Shantanu Kemkar and Nitin Sambre took the view that a recusal could take place for a variety of reasons that were personal to the judge, ranging from his or her conscience, to what might constitute a conflict of interest in their minds..The Court was hearing a petition challenging a decision by the Principal District Judge, Pune, who transferred a case from one judge to another..The case was transferred after one of the four petitioners, who is also lawyer, commented on a Facebook post of SB Bahalkar, the judge before whom the matter initially came up..The issue was immediately brought to the notice of Principal District Judge SM Modak by Judge Bahalkar, who later recused from the matter after consulting with the Principal Judge. The matter was later assigned to a different judge..The High Court found no merit in the petitioners’ contention that a judge could not recuse purely because a party whose case was before him merely visited his Facebook page..Taking a strong view on this, the Bench termed the actions of the petitioner who had commented on the post tantamount to professional misconduct..Another plea by the petitioners that the Civil Appeal should not be heard either by the Principal District Judge or by the judge to whom it was transferred to, was also dismissed..The Bench held that the Principal Judge had every right to allocate judicial business and such a plea by the petitioners, especially given that one of them was an advocate, was virtually forum hunting..Read the order
