Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

12. In the light of the foregoing, Mr. Uday Lalit, learned Senior Counsel, submitted that the applicant has demonstrated that there were background facts suggestive of hostility from 1984 and that the applicant nurtured those feelings not now but even in 2003 and had mentioned the name of Manmohan Sarin, J. in the complaint to the Prime Minister against the Law Minister and the concerned Judge/Chief Justice. He submits that thus, the apprehension of bias nurtured by the respondent could not be said to be unreasonable and following the dictum of Supreme Court in P.K. Ghosh, IAS and Anr. v. J.G. Rajput, reported at that the apprehension was not unreasonable and there was no compelling necessity for the Judge to do the case, a case for recusal was made out. Learned Counsel further submitted that the applicant had come to the Court without delay and it was a bona fide application. It was not a case of any 'bench hunting'. The Court had not expressed any opinion so far on merits and thus, the application for recusal could not be said to be motivated.

13. Learned amices Curiae Mr. Arvind Nigam, has addressed on the application for recusal including the note and the annexures submitted by the applicant. At the outset, learned Counsel submits that the Page 2766 application, note and the annexures thereto contain scandalous and defamatory imputations against persons, who are not party to the proceedings. He submits that the contents of the application and note are in derogation of the law of pleadings, giving a go-by to precision and moderation. He submits that the complaint made by the applicant against his political opponent and a former Law Minister accusing him of misuse of power, engineering corruption and manipulation in judiciary as part of the applicant's own political or other agenda/ambitions, cannot be permitted to be used as a vehicle for defamation and slander of parties, which are not before the Court. He submitted that the prayer made for 'in-camera' proceedings and the submissions of the documents accompanying the note in sealed cover were intended by the applicant to secure protection against himself for an action for defamation. The subject matter of the said complaints was not an issue in these proceedings. He submits that the note, complaint and the documents do not pertain to the matter in issue and were liable to be struck off from the record as unnecessary, frivolous and impeding a fair trial. Relying on Mulla's commentary on Order 6 Rule 16 CPC wherein with regard to scandalous pleadings, it is provided:

23. In the present application, the request for recusal is being dealt with as such it is not proposed to take any action for contempt, save to direct that the scandalous and defamatory imputations in the note and complaint and the innuendos made therein, shall not be permitted to be used/cited for any purpose other than for this recusal application. The note and the annexures be kept in a sealed cover. Certified copies of the note and annexures would not be made available to any third parties save the applicant and that too only for the purposes of legal remedies, if any, to be availed and be re-sealed thereafter.

25. It is not necessary to deal in detail with the scandalous and defamatory allegations contained in the note and the annexures thereto except to state that it is an invidious attempt of the applicant to somehow create a factual foundation when none exists for the purposes of his recusal application. Applicant's attempt appears to be to make a grievance out of anything and everything. One fact which completely demonstrates and exposes the falsity and hollowness of the averments of the applicant's so called hostility from 1984-88 till date is the fact that the applicant as a Senior Counsel, with a wide flourishing practice, has been regularly appearing and arguing numerous cases before the Bench of Justice Manmohan Sarin in Single Bench as well as in the Division Bench right from 1995 till the present application was made, without even a murmur or whisper or protest. Had there been any ill will, hostility or prejudice, apprehension of bias thereof or for that matter, suspicion of bias, applicant would not have been regularly appearing before the Bench and getting orders, both favorable and unfavorable without seeking even once recusal from the Bench or expressing its dissatisfaction in the last 12 years. This cuts at the very root of the Applicant's case for recusal. The present application thus, appears to be an attempt at forum hunting or the desire to 'match stars'.