A judge's past association with a political party is not a ground for recusal; Then why did Justice Kausik Chanda recuse?

The past association of a judge with a political party by itself cannot form apprehension of bias and cannot be a ground to seek his recusal from hearing cases involving that political party or its leaders, Justice Kausik Chanda emphasised in his judgment on Wednesday..The judge recused from hearing the election petition filed by West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee against BJP leader Suvendu Adhikari..In India, it will be difficult to find any person who may not have any political views. The same goes for judges who exercise their voting rights just like any other citizen, Justice Chanda said.“Hence, it is preposterous to suggest that a judge having a past association with a political party as a lawyer should not decide a case involving the same political party or any of its members. The past association of a Judge with a political party by itself cannot form apprehension of bias,” the judge said..Such an argument, if allowed to be accepted, would be destructive to the long running and deep rooted notion of neutrality associated with the justice delivery system and would lead to unfair practice of bench hunting to resist a fair adjudication, he further opined.He, therefore, said that the only consideration for recusal should be whether the facts of the case can really give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias in the litigant's mind.The neutrality of the judge is totally irrelevant in the context, he added..Banerjee had sought Justice Chanda’s recusal citing his close association with the BJP when he was a lawyer.Justice Chanda had also served as Additional Solicitor General for the BJP government before he was elevated to the Bench. He was also actively involved with Adhivakta Parishad, the lawyers' wing of the party..Justice Chanda, however, said that a lawyer is trained not to identify himself with a client, and at the same time be loyal towards his duty to the client.“When a lawyer moves from Bar to Bench, he carries with him the same sense of discipline which has been already in built in him,” he added..Then why did Justice Chanda recuse from the matter?.Justice Chanda took objection to two issues. First, the manner in which his recusal was sought, and second, how “opportunists” emerged to defame the judiciary citing his connections with the BJP when he was a lawyer.He said that when the case had first come up before him on June 18, no request was made for his recusal. However, after the hearing, leaders of All India Trinamool Congress party were ready with photos and details of his association with the BJP and put out a number of tweets to that effect..It was further noted that a plea was made before the Chief Justice on the administrative side for reallocation of the case."The aforesaid chronology of events clearly suggest that a deliberate and conscious attempt was made to influence my decision before the recusal application was placed before the court for judicial consideration on. The calculated psychological offensive and vilification for recusal need to be firmly repulsed and a costs of Rs. 5 lakh is imposed upon the petitioner," he ordered...He then highlighted how certain opportunists have emerged to create new controversies using the pretext of saving the judiciary.“These trouble-mongers will try to keep the controversy alive and create newer controversies. The trial of the case before this Bench will be a tool to aggrandise themselves,” he said.This, he stated, would be contrary to the interests of justice if such unwarranted squabble continues along with the trial of the case, and such attempts should be thwarted at the threshold.The hearing of the case should proceed seamlessly, like any other litigation before this Court, he underscored.He, therefore, proceeded to release the matter from his list..[Read Order]