Today, On 24th October, The Supreme Court criticized a request for an investigation into the recusal of a Karnataka High Court judge, allowing the petitioner to withdraw their plea. The top court remarked that the request was not only inappropriate but could also convey misleading signals about judicial conduct.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court, On Thursday, strongly criticized a petitioner who requested an investigation into Karnataka High Court Judge Justice M. Nagaprasanna’s decision to recuse himself from three cases.
A Bench consisting of Justices Abhay S. Oka, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, and Augustine George Masih expressed their disapproval of the plea, deeming it not only inappropriate but also likely to send “wrong signals.”
Read Also: Central Government Appoints 3 Lawyers as Gujarat High Court Judges
The Court stated,
“Look at your prayers. How can prayer B be pressed? What is this? This will send wrong signals. Guidelines is fine, but you can’t seek relief directing a probe into the circumstances under which the judge recused; it will suggest some other motive. You want to press? This raises questions about your bona fides. You should seek relief only on principles. What was the need to put allegations against all private parties and cast aspersions against the judges? The manner of filing this petition is highly objectionable,”
The Supreme Court stated,
“This will send wrong signals. We cannot probe the discretion of the judge,”
The petition, filed by Advocate Vishal Arun Mishra, sought to establish guidelines for judicial recusal and to investigate the recusal of Justice M. Nagaprasanna of the Karnataka High Court in a set of three petitions.
In one of these cases, the judge had recused himself after reserving orders related to a petition that requested the registration of criminal complaints against the wife and son of the current Karnataka State Lokayukta.
Additionally, this petition called for a court-monitored investigation into the allegations of corruption.
During today’s hearing, the Supreme Court remarked that the plea concerning Justice Nagaprasanna’s recusal filed in an “oblique manner” and questioned its underlying motivations.
Justice Oka stated,
“Are the judges also so weak in your view? Do you think the Lokayukta can influence judicial outcomes? The writ has been filed in an oblique manner, and we are uncertain about the motivations behind it. If judges stay up until 7 PM, you don’t seem to care about that,”
Justice Amanullah further emphasized that the Court was not prima facie satisfied with the grounds presented in the plea, asserting that it could not question the discretion of the High Court judge.
Read Also: Supreme Court Slams Uttarakhand HC Judge for Unwarranted Remarks Against Lawyers
He remarked,
“The entire Karnataka judiciary will be… Is it feasible? We are prima facie not satisfied. You may have some lofty grounds, but we cannot probe the discretion of the judge,”
Ultimately, the Court permitted the withdrawal of the plea but pointed out that it contained several objectionable elements.
Additionally, it clarified that it had not decided whether it would be appropriate to establish any guidelines for recusal.
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES