Recusals by judges, or instances where judges disqualify themselves from a particular case due to conflict of interest, is not a new phenomenon.
Recusals by judges, or instances where judges disqualify themselves from a particular case due to conflict of interest, is not a new phenomenon. Indian judiciary has taken recourse to recusals in cases whenever the situation demanded.
Film actor Salman Khan's case is the latest example. Khan has to bide a little longer in jail as his bail plea was removed from the board of Justice JK Vyas at the Rajasthan High Court on Wednesday. Khan was recently sentenced to five years in jail for poaching of Chinkara in Sept 1998.
Apparently, Justice Vyas was also the prosecutor for the forest and animal husbandry department of Rajasthan. "This presents a conflict of interest. Ethics demand that the judge does not hear Khan's case," said criminal lawyer Shyam Keswani.
"In the '80s, the Bombay High Court was seized of a litigation involving Telco, a favourite among investors then. Almost every judge held shares with the company. To find a judge qualified to hear the case was difficult," recalls Jai Chinai, a Bombay High Court lawyer.
Justice FIR Rebello's recusal in 2001 is another example of disqualification. Midway through a copyrights case, he realised he held investments in Hindustan Lever Ltd. The case was heard from the scratch before another judge, resulting in waste of time and money for the litigant. In February this year, Justice DG Karnik, a shareholder of ONGC, refused to hear a case involving the company. "There are times when litigants may take advantage of this rule of ethics. They may falsely point an accusative finger at a judge, who must withdraw from presiding over the matter," said Chinai.
In 2006, a litigant accused a Justice of the Supreme Court of corruption in a letter. "The judge had to recuse himself from the case on the eve of his retirement, even though there the contents of the letter were not justified," said Chinai.
In another incident, litigant PC Singhi reminded a justice of the Bombay High Court that the party sued by Singhi was a hospital where the judge had received treatment at a discount.
"Times are when a judge has to withdraw because he held a private conversation with one of the appearing lawyers. Such audiences have led to allegations of corruption or bias. The judiciary does not hear cases in which friends are involved or perceived to be involved," said Chinai.
At times, judges have been forced to step down in what seems to be a tactic to hinder the judicial process.
){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}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}