The Supreme Court has expressed serious reservations over a Uttarakhand High Court judge hearing a dispute connected to a company that he had previously represented as an advocate, observing that judicial propriety demanded recusal in such circumstances.
Dealing with the matter of Prateek Resorts and Builders Pvt. Ltd. v. Puneet Agrawal and Others, a Bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kumar and Sanjeev Sachdeva remarked that the judge should not have entertained the proceedings after having acted for the company in earlier litigation, irrespective of whether the legal questions in the two cases were different.
“In such circumstances, in the interest of judicial propriety, the learned Judge ought not to have entertained and passed orders in the matter,” the Bench stated in its order dated July 27.
The Supreme Court emphasized that the legitimacy of the judicial system rests not only on fairness in decision-making but also on the public perception of impartiality. According to the Bench, judges must remain mindful of situations that could cast doubt on the independence of the process.
“Justice must not only be done but must also be seen to be done. Passing orders either in favour of or against a former client, a private entity, does not further that cause,” the Court observed.
The controversy stemmed from a series of interim directions issued by the Uttarakhand High Court in criminal writ petitions concerning land associated with Prateek Resorts and Builders Private Limited. During the hearing before the apex court, it was pointed out that the High Court judge had earlier appeared on behalf of the company in litigation relating to the same stretch of land.
It was also brought to the Court’s attention that the company had sought to be impleaded in the proceedings before the High Court and that the application was yet to be decided.
Apart from the issue of judicial recusal, the Supreme Court noted that the interim orders had widened the scope of the original writ petitions, bringing within their ambit matters that were not initially under challenge.
The Bench observed that, even if the expansion of the proceedings was driven by genuine concerns, such an approach was inappropriate in petitions instituted for entirely different purposes. If the issues raised merited consideration in the public interest, the judge could have referred the matter to the High Court’s Public Interest Litigation Committee or placed it before the Chief Justice for further action.
Despite its criticism, the Supreme Court stopped short of suspending the interim directions, pointing out that they were already in operation and that assurances had been given that no trees would be felled in the meantime.
Instead, the Court ordered that the case be reassigned to an appropriate Bench of the Uttarakhand High Court, which would independently examine all questions involved, including the legality of the interim orders already passed.
The apex court further directed that its order be forwarded to the Chief Justice of the Uttarakhand High Court so that suitable steps could be taken regarding the future listing of the matter and, if necessary, the initiation of public interest proceedings.
