The Chhattisgarh High Court addressed judicial recusal and professional ethics as a judge stepped aside after his niece appeared as counsel, stating that the Chief Justice’s new bench-hunting circular “appears to be an interference of the Court functioning.”
The High Court of Chhattisgarh, in a recent order, dealt with an important issue relating to judicial recusal, professional ethics, and the limits of administrative circulars.
At the outset, the Division Bench noted that the matter could not be heard by it and declared,
“This matter is an exception to this Bench.”
The Court further directed that the case be listed before another appropriate Bench where one of the judges, Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal, is not a member.
Explaining the reason for recusal, the Court recorded that an advocate, Ms. Shivangi Agrawal, had appeared in the matter on earlier dates and is related to Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal.
The Bench stated,
“The aforesaid exception has been made because of the appearance of Ms. Shivangi Agrawal on 21/08/2025 and 30/03/2026, who is a junior counsel to learned Senior Advocate Shri Manoj Paranjpe and is a niece of one of us (Sanjay S. Agrawal, J.), therefore, it is not desirable to consider the said matter.”
The Court relied on Rule 6 under Part VI, Chapter II of the Standards of Professional Conduct and Etiquette framed under Section 49(1)(c) of the Advocates Act, 1961.
The rule clearly states,
“An Advocate shall not enter appearance, act, plead or practise in any way before a court… if any member thereof is related to the Advocate as father, grandfather, son, grand son, uncle, brother, nephew, first cousin, husband, wife, mother, daughter, sister, aunt, niece, father-in-law, mother-in-law, son-in-law, brother in-law, daughter-in-law or sister-in-law.”
Applying this rule, the Bench emphasised that in order to maintain fairness and avoid any possible controversy, it would not be appropriate to hear the matter.
At the same time, the Court took note of a recent circular issued by the High Court administration on April 16, 2026, which aimed to curb the practice of bench hunting. The circular clarified that exceptions to a Bench should not be treated as a general rule and must be used only in rare and bona fide circumstances.
The circular further stated that where an advocate’s appearance leads to a situation requiring recusal due to relationship, prior association, or any close connection with a judge,
“The Advocate/Counsel concerned may not accept such brief, and if already accepted, may forthwith return the brief to the litigant.”
It also added that even if the advocate fails to return the brief, “the case, whether fresh filed or already pending, shall not be treated as a ground for Exception of the concerned Bench/Court.”
For pending matters arising due to change in roster, the circular provided that the advocate may withdraw appearance. If not withdrawn, the Court may examine the circumstances, and Only in rare and exceptional cases, and upon being satisfied that the situation is bonafide and not intended to avoid the concerned Bench/Court, may the Bench/Court consider making an Exception, for reasons to be recorded in writing.
Importantly, the circular directed that all such matters be placed before the Chief Justice for appropriate orders.
However, the Bench expressed reservations regarding the scope of this circular.
It observed,
“The aforesaid circular has been issued in order to prevent the practice of Bench/Court hunting, but which case is to be made an exception and how the Court is to be functioned, is a prerogative of the concerned Bench and cannot be directed and restricted as such, in the light of the aforesaid provision.”
The Court went a step further and remarked,
“The said circular, thus, appears to be an interference of the Court functioning.”
Despite these observations, the Bench concluded the proceedings by directing, “Be that as it may, let the matter be placed before Hon’ble the Chief Justice for appropriate orders for its listing.”
This order highlights the delicate balance between maintaining judicial discipline, preventing bench hunting, and preserving the independence of individual Benches in deciding recusal and procedural matters.
Case Title: Ayushi Ginoria (Agrawal) vs. Sumit Agrawal.