Kumar, who was acquitted of all charges in a case relating to murder of five people from the same family during the communal riots of 1984 targeting the Sikhs in South Delhi's Cantonement area, had filed an application seeking Justice Teji's recusal.
The criminal division bench at the Delhi High Court dismissed an application filed by Congress leader Sajjan Kumar seeking the recusal of Justice PS Teji, one half of the division bench from hearing the Central Bureau of Investigation's (CBI) appeal against his acquittal.
In dismissing the plea, the bench in its 140-paged judgment, jointly stated, "In the six years since 2010, when the anticipatory bail applications were dealt with and the order passed on 27th March, (2010), a whole trial stands concluded and final judgment stands passed in the case by the trial court. There is no basis at all for nursing apprehension of bias, let alone reasonable or real ground for the same."
Kumar, who was acquitted of all charges in a case relating to murder of five people from the same family during the communal riots of 1984 targeting the Sikhs in South Delhi's Cantonement area, had filed an application seeking Justice Teji's recusal. Kumar claimed that since Justice Teji as an Additional Sessions judge in Karkardooma court had refused to grant anticipatory bail to Kumar in 2010, it was an indication of his bias against their client.
The division bench at the DHC observed that the plea filed was nothing but a dilatory tactic employed by the respondents. "These tantamount to a direct interference in the due course of administration of justice and obstruct discharge of judicial function by a judge rendering the applicants liable to be proceeded against under the Contempt of Courts Act," Justice Mittal announced. "We have no manner of doubt that we would have been justified in invoking such contempt proceedings against these applicants for having wilfully made such applications containing baseless and unfounded allegations and deliberately misrepresenting judicial record in a dishonest attempt to prevent hearings in these cases," she added.
The judgment detailed the facts of the matter in detail with observations made by the justices individually and jointly. However, both the justices shared a common opinion that "the present applications are the grossest possible abuse of the process of law."
Justice Teji said, "I have faithfully, honestly and to the best of my ability without any bias, prejudice and above influence of any kind discharged my judicial functions in consonance with the above oath which I have taken. The present applications are baseless and the apprehensions misconceived and malafide only intended to delay the hearings.
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
 "Sajjan Kumar")
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}