Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

- 56 -
biased. In fact the order dated 10.07.2009 does disclose prima facie opinion of the judge that the courier appears to be a handiwork of the respondents.
The learned Judge in the observations in page 94 of the order dated 15.9.2009 has given a different explanation for his stop- visit to the temple. However, the content of the paper report is not disputed in its entirety. In that view, the conduct of A1 in filing application for recusal cannot be considered as a scandalous act. In fact, the language used in the affidavits is polite and courteous, no disparaging language is used in narrating the facts. There are no reasonable grounds and prima facie case made out to frame charge. The conduct of A1 in filing recusal application and its contents appears to be bonafide. In fact, there is absolutely no material against A1, A3 to A6 to hold them liable for contempt, much less against A2. Therefore, the proceedings for contempt against A1 to A6 dropped."

32. Sri. Ravi B Naik, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for A.1 contended that the bias pleaded by accused No.1 in respect of the application for recusal is two

- 62 -

fold. Firstly, the events that transpired in the open Court and secondly, reporting of those events by the press in the newspapers. These two factors created apprehension in the minds of accused No.1 that he may not get justice in the hands of Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.L.Manjunath. In fact, after dismissing the application for recusal, the learned Judges sent the matter to another Court. It shows that they too, subconsciously were convinced that they should not hear the matter. It only means that they too believed that there is merit in what accused No.1 has set out in the affidavit filed in support of the recusal application. Therefore, it cannot be said that the reasons given in the affidavit for the recusal is baseless or is flimsy one. It was further argued that the learned Senior Counsel representing the first accused, even without seeing the photographs sent in the cover, made a submission that it could be ignored and they have full confidence in the Court and therefore, the appeal could be heard on merits. But ignoring this aspect, the learned Judge in the order proceeded to observe that, when such a submission is made by the learned Senior Counsel, it means that he knows the contents of that cover which is not correct. Further, it is argued that the observation of the

- 108 -

77. Now, it is in this background, the points for consideration as framed hereinbefore is taken up for consideration.

POINT NO.1 RECUSAL APPLICATION - BIAS

78. Whether the filing of an application by a party to the proceedings requesting a Judge to recuse himself from hearing the case on the ground that he is biased constitutes contempt?

79. In order to appreciate the case of bias alleged against a Judge, we have to carefully scan the allegations made in the affidavit of the 1st respondent.

- 153 -
Accordingly, the matter was adjourned to 11-8-2009."

120. After the order dated 15.09.2009, the High Court initiated suo moto contempt proceedings in compliance with the said order after obtaining the permission of the Hon'ble Chief Justice. When the matter was placed before the Bench consisting of Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. Sreedhar Rao and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Subhash B Adi. Hon'ble Justice Mr. K. Sreedhar Rao held that the conduct of A.1 in filing the application for recusal cannot be construed as scandalous act, the language used in the affidavits is polite and courteous and no disparaging language is used in narrating the facts. The conduct of A.1 in filing the recusal application and its contents appears to be bonafide. There is absolutely no material against A.1, A.3 to A.6 to hold them liable for contempt much less against A.2. Therefore he ordered for dropping of contempt proceedings against A.1 to A.6.