Justice Bharati Dangre of Bombay High Court recuses from case after receiving letter alleging bias; calls for CBI probe

Justice Bharati Dangre of Bombay High Court recused from a case after she received a letter from an individual alleging bias on her part [Suresh Kevalram Khemani & Ors. v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Ors.]..While recusing from the matter, she called for a probe by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) into the episode to ascertain the veracity and identity of the sender.In an unprecedented move, she explained through a 5-page-order that she was giving detailed reasons for recusal so as to ensure that disgruntled elements who indulge in such intimidating acts should not walk away once the judge recused from a case. “It was open for me to recuse, without disclosing the reason, but it is high time that some accountability is attributed to the disgruntled elements, who continue to haunt the system by their unscrupulous acts and walk away, without waiting for consequences of their intimidating action, once the judge recuses from the matter and it is time to show that the system to continue it’s unflinching loyalty to ‘Justice’,” the judge said..The judge explained that after reading the letter, she concluded that she lacked the imperative requirement of being a part of a "manifestly independent decision-making process". “I should have a clear conscience that I am still ‘independent’ and capable of discharging my duty in deciding the case, being uninfluenced by the communication addressed to me,” the judge said..Justice Dangre was hearing a revision application filed in 2021 where the CBI was the probing the case.She directed the High Court registry to give a copy to advocate Kuldeep Patil appearing for CBI who could submit the same to the CBI Mumbai headquarters to bring about an inquiry into the letter.“CBI counsel will bring it to the notice of the headquarters at Mumbai with an expectation that CBI shall take cognizance of this judicial impropriety, by conducting a necessary inquiry into the same, as the sender has disclosed his name and address on the envelope, as well as in the communication,” the Court ordered..The judge expressed that her decision to recuse was not because she had been asked to decide one way but to avoid further accusations of favour being shown."I deem it appropriate to recuse myself not because I have been asked to decide one way, but because I feel it necessary to do so, to avoid further accusations of favour being shown or if I have to dispel the accusations, necessarily I may be compelled to decide the other way, which may even mean injustice to one of the party," she said..The judge also pointed out that this was not the first instance where such kind of communication were made casting aspersions on judges. She added that resultant recusals could not be used as a tool for forum shopping by parties.“Recusal definitely cannot be used as a tool to manoeuvre justice, as a means of ‘bench hunting’ or ‘forum shopping’, or as an instrument to evade judicial work. It is not the first time that communications casting aspersions are addressed to the dispensers of justice, sometimes with a specific intent of picking benches of the party’s choice and at times, as a mode of browbeating the system,” the judge said. .Senior advocate Aabad Ponda appearing for the revision applicant urged the Court to initiate contempt proceedings against the person mentioned in the letter.Justice Dangre, however, deferred the action till she received a CBI report which could affirm the existence of the sender..The Court will consider the report on September 29..[Read Order]