Supreme Court pulls up Uttarakhand High Court judge for hearing former client’s case

The Supreme Court recently criticised a judge of the Uttarakhand High Court for hearing and passing orders in a case involving a company he had earlier represented as a lawyer [Prateek Resorts and Builders Pvt Ltd v. Puneet Agrawal & Ors].

A Bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and Sanjeev Sachdeva said in its order passed on July 27,

“In such circumstances, in the interest of judicial propriety, the learned Judge ought not to have entertained and passed orders in the matter.”

The Court underscored that public confidence in the justice delivery system required judges to avoid hearing matters involving former clients.

“Trite to state, justice must not only be done but must also be seen to be done. Passing orders either in favour of or against a former client, a private entity, does not further that cause,” it said.

The case arose from a batch of interim orders passed by the Uttarakhand High Court in criminal writ petitions concerning land linked to Prateek Resorts and Builders Private Limited.

Before the Supreme Court, it was pointed out that the High Court judge had earlier appeared as counsel for the company in litigation concerning the very same parcel of land. The company had also moved an application before the High Court seeking to be impleaded in the proceedings, which was still pending.

The Supreme Court also found that the scope of the writ petitions had been expanded through the interim orders to deal with issues that were not part of the original proceedings.

The Bench said that even if this had been done with the best of intentions, it was not the proper course to adopt in writ petitions that were filed on entirely different issues.

It observed that if the judge believed the matter warranted consideration in public interest, he could have referred it to the High Court’s Public Interest Litigation Committee or placed it before the Chief Justice for appropriate action.

The Court, however, declined to interfere with the interim orders at this stage, noting that they were already operating and that undertakings had been given not to cut trees.

It directed that the matter be placed before an appropriate bench of the High Court, which would examine all issues afresh, including the validity of the interim orders.

The Supreme Court also directed that a copy of its order be sent to the Chief Justice of the Uttarakhand High Court for appropriate steps regarding the future listing of the cases and the initiation of public interest litigation, if warranted.

The petitioners were represented by Senior Advocate Mukta Gupta along with advocates Rahul Jain, Lalit Mohini Bhat, Hetu Arora Sethi, Siddarth Agarwal, Sanidhya Kumar, Kanak Bathwal, Nitya Gupta and Vittal Bala Subrahmanyam.

The respondents were represented by advocates Vanshaja Shukla, Deepti Arya, Narayan Har Gupta, Samapika Biswal, Anmol Sandhu, Swati Arya, Mehak Kumar and Vijay Kasana.

[Read Order]