Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

39. In Bal Kishan Giri v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2014) 7 SCC 280, this Court has considered derogatory remarks and efforts to destroy the system. The relevant portions are extracted hereunder:

"12. This Court in M.B. Sanghi v. High Court of Punjab and Haryana, (1991) 3 SCC 600, while examining a similar case observed: (SCC p. 602, para 2) "2. ... The foundation of [judicial] system which is based on the independence and impartiality of those who man it will be shaken if disparaging and derogatory remarks are made against the presiding judicial officers with impunity. It is high time that we realise that the much cherished judicial independence has to be protected not only from the executive THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH (BALRAM VS. STATE OF M.P. & ANR.) or the legislature but also from those who are an integral part of the system. An independent judiciary is of vital importance to any free society."

14. In Jennison v. Baker, (1972) 2 QB 52, All ER p. 1006d, it was observed: (QB p.

66 H) "... 'The law should not be seen to sit by limply, while those who defy it go free, and those who seek its protection lose hope.'"

40. The decision in All India Institute of Medical Sciences v. Prof. Kaushal K. Verma, (2015) 220 DLT 446 (W.P. [C] No.4103/2014), rendered by one of us, Ravindra Bhat, J., has also been referred, thus:
"25. Before ending this unusually prolix order, which can run into the danger of selfvindication, the Court observes that requests for recusal are to be based on reasonable apprehensions; they cannot be speculative or fanciful suppositions. An observation that needs to be emphasized is that recusals generally, and especially those fuelled by unjustified demands can THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH (BALRAM VS. STATE OF M.P. & ANR.) be burdensome on the judges who are eventually called upon to decide the cause. Whenever made, the concerned court or judge so charged is bound to take it seriously, as it undermines what is the bedrock of justice delivery impartiality. To borrow the words of Beverely Mclachlin (Chief Justice of Canada) ("Judging in a Democratic State") :

If one may add, the greater the experience of the judge, the more acutely she or he is aware of her or his fallibility and the pitfalls of acting on impulse or prejudice. The journey, which begins with certainty, later leads to a path of many grey areas. Given that language itself is an imperfect medium, words are but vessels giving shape to ideas and that no human being is perfect, no THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH (BALRAM VS. STATE OF M.P. & ANR.) judge can claim to be perfect in communicating ideas. The emphasis on a phrase here or an expression there, bereft of anything more, would not ipso facto disclose a predilection, or predisposition to decide in a particular manner."

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH (BALRAM VS. STATE OF M.P. & ANR.) The ultimate test is that it is for the Judge to decide and to find out whether he will be able to deliver impartial justice to a cause with integrity with whatever intellectual capacity at his command and he is not prejudiced by any fact or law and is able to take an independent view. The answer would lie in examining whether without having any bias or without any pressure or not even irked by such a prayer for recusal, can he decide the case impartially. In case the answer is that he will be able to deliver justice to the cause, he cannot and must not recuse from any case as the duty assigned by the Constitution has to be performed as per the oath and there lies the larger public interest. He cannot shake the faith that the common man reposes in the judiciary as it is the last hope for them.