Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Mr. K.K. Venugopal, the learned senior counsel also points out that Mr. T.N. Seshan, the first respondent herein, was a student of Dr. Subramanian Swamy, when Dr. Subramanian Swamy, was Professor of Economics in Harward University and it has been accepted by Dr. Subramanian Swamy during the course of arguments. The reasonable apprehension in the minds of the petitioner that the first respondent will be biased against her cannot be brushed aside lightly because of the close and intimate friendship between the first and second respondents herein and the unity and identity of interests between the counsel of the first respondent, who is the wife of the second respondent and the second respondent who has given the memorandum against the petitioner. Though it is stated that Mr. T.N. Seshan, the first respondent herein will be impartial, I am of the view, as held by Lord Denning, if right minded persons would think that, in the circumstances, there was a real likelihood of bias on his part, then he should not sit. It is a fact that the first respondent herein, has engaged Dr. Roxna S. Swamy, the wife of the second respondent only as his counsel in a civil suit with high stakes, in my view, it makes no difference. No reasonable man would drawany distinction between the second respondent and his wife, on seeing that she was living with the second respondent and assisting him in his case before the Supreme Court with regard to this very same subject matter, wherein a writ of mandamus was filed by the second respondent against the Governor of Tamil Nadu, when there was some delay in forwarding his memorandum to the Election Commission. It can be easily said that when deciding a petition filed by the husband of his advocate with regard to disqualification, the interest of the husband of the counsel will have an impact on Mr. T.N. Seshan's mind, the first respondent, unconsciously. This may affect the decision which may be arrived at by the first respondent. This is what is called 'real likelihood of bias.

31. The case of the writ petitioner is that the first respondent has filed a suit for defamation in the High Court of Delhi being Civil Suit No. 3286 of 1992 in August, 1992 against the United News of India, New Delhi, claiming a sum of Rs. 1 crore as damages for the defamation alleged in the suit. In that suit, the first respondent, who is the plaintiff, is represented by Dr. Roxna S. Swamy, Advocate, who is the wife of Dr. Subramanian Swamy, the second respondent. It is further alleged that Dr. Roxna S. Swamy assisted her husband Dr. Subramanian Swamy and instructed him in conducting his case before the Supreme Court, being W.P. (Civil) No. 942 of 1992, which was filed against the writ petitioner and the Governor of Tamil Nadu, for issuing a direction to the Governor of Tamil Nadu to forward the petition presented by Dr. Subramanian Swamy, under Article 192 of the Constitution to the Election Commission for opinion. It is further alleged that the first respondent has paid a court fee of Rs. one lakh on the plaint filed in C.S. No. 3286 of 1992, that his success in the suit depends upon the performance of his counsel Dr. Roxna S. Swamy, that the first respondent having invested his savings over the years as a Government servant and later as the Chief Election Commissioner of India, the stakes in the suit as far as he is concerned, both monetarily as well as by way of protecting his reputation, are very high and that, therefore, he is wholly indebted to his counsel Dr. Roxna S. Swamy, whether she is appearing for him on professional basis, on payment of fees, or otherwise on account of any family friendship with the counsel and her husband for the efficient and successful conduct of the case. It is also further alleged that whatever it may be, the first respondent is fully aware of the unity and identity of interests between Dr. Roxna S. Swamy, who is his counsel in his Rs. One crore case and her husband Dr. Subramanian Swamy who is hotly pursuing his charge of disqualification against the writ petitioner. Therefore, it is alleged that the first respondent would find it embarrassing and difficult to decide freely and impartially the case of disqualification put forward by Dr. Subramanian Swamy against the writ petitioner, which is in substance and effect would be a decision and opinion against his counsel Dr. Roxna S. Swamy.

(b) The first respondent has filed such a suit through Dr. Roxna S. Swamy, Advocate, who is none other than the wife of the second respon dent, Dr. Subramanian Swamy. The suit was filed in the month of August, 1992. Dr. Subramanian Swamy and his wife have been together appearing in the case filed by Dr. Subramanian Swamy against the writ petitioner and the present proceedings initiated by the writ petitioner. Dr. Roxna S. Swamy assisted the second respondent in W.P. (Civil) No. 942 of 1992 filed by him in the Supreme Court against the present writ petitioner and the Gover nor of Tamil Nadu, seeking a mandamus to the Governor to forward the petition dated 2.10.1992 filed by him to disqualify the writ petitioner from being a Member of the State Legislature. There fore, it cannot be said that Dr. Roxna S. Swamy is unconnected with, or has .no knowledge of, the proceedings that are going on between the second respondent and the writ petitioner before the Supreme Court and before this Court.

40. The facts and circumstances stated above as (a), (b), (c) and (d) would establish that there is more than an ordinary relationship between the first respondent on the one hand and the second respondent and his wife on the other. The relationship of lawyer and client, apart from being contractual, is a relationship rooted in confidence. No party entrusts the case to a counsel unless he has confidence in the counsel. Therefore, the relationship between the client and the counsel is not an ordinary relationship. It can even be stated that it is a fiduciary one. Counsel would normally be in a dominating position. On the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that Dr. Roxna S. Swamy will not at all be interested in the proceedings being prosecuted by her husband, Dr. Subramanian Swamy,, against the writ petitioner. In such circumstances, it would be unrealistic and ignoring the normal human conduct and would be opposed to common sense, to hold that the interest of Dr. Roxna S. Swamy and Dr. Subramanian Swamy in the proceedings would not operate in the mind of the first respondent while giving his opinion on the petition dated 2.10.1992 presented by Dr. Subramanian Swamy, the husband of Dr. Roxna S. Swamy, to disqualify the writ petitioner. It is not the assertion, and confidence, of the first respondent that he would give his opinion without any fear of, or favour to, any person, and without bias in favour of the second respondent, and even assuming that he would do so, that is relevant for keeping beyond. reasonable doubt about the fairness of administration of justice. But what is relevant is as to how, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petitioner feels. Is it not, in the facts and circumstances of the case, reasonable for the writ petitioner to assume the possibility of bias or likelihood of bias of the first respondent in favour of the second respondent? We have no doubt that the facts and circumstances of the case do create a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the writ petitioner and it would also be sufficient to produce in the mind not only of the writ petitioner but also of the public at large a reasonable doubt about the fairness of the administration of justice and a suspicion that there is a likelihood of bias by the first respondent in favour of the second respondent.