The Supreme Court intervened after learning that four successive Benches of the Punjab and Haryana High Court recused from hearing a former judicial officer’s challenge against dismissal from service. CJI Surya Kant sought details but declined to transfer the case.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday intervened in a matter after being informed that four consecutive Benches of the Punjab and Haryana High Court had recused themselves from hearing a former judicial officer’s challenge against his dismissal from service.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justice V. Mohana expressed serious concern over the repeated recusals and warned that any attempt to interfere with the judicial process could invite serious consequences.
The issue came before the Supreme Court during the hearing of a transfer petition filed in relation to the former judicial officer’s challenge against the termination order. The matter concerns a former judicial officer who has challenged his dismissal from service before the High Court. The challenge has remained pending amid repeated recusals by successive Benches, resulting in the matter being brought before the Supreme Court.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Rejects Plea Seeking Guidelines on Recusal of Judges
Four Judges Recused From Hearing Matter: During the hearing, Advocate Amrish Kumar Jain informed the Supreme Court that four successive Benches of the Punjab and Haryana High Court had withdrawn from hearing the case. According to Jain, the judges who recused included Justice Lisa Gill, who was then the Chief Justice of the High Court, along with Justices Sanjiv Berry, Ashwini Kumar Mishra and Dipak Sibal.
After hearing the submission, Chief Justice Surya Kant sought details regarding the judges who had recused and questioned the circumstances that led to the repeated recusals.
The Chief Justice remarked:
“I would like to know who are the judges. So then I am going to make an inquiry into what kind of activities you are indulging in.”
The CJI indicated that the Court would examine whether there was any improper conduct affecting the listing and hearing of the matter. During the hearing, the Chief Justice also expressed concern over the role of certain lawyers in the repeated recusals.
He observed:
“Three or four so-called senior advocates are creating havoc. I am closely watching the thing,”
The Bench suggested that Advocate Jain could argue the matter himself instead of engaging senior advocates, indicating that repeated appearances by senior counsel should not become a reason for disrupting the judicial process. The Court cautioned that any effort to delay or obstruct proceedings would not be tolerated.
Supreme Court Refuses Transfer to Another High Court: The petitioner had sought transfer of the matter to another High Court, apparently due to the repeated recusals before the Punjab and Haryana High Court. However, the Supreme Court declined to transfer the case.
Instead, the Bench directed the Acting Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court to constitute a fresh two-judge Division Bench to hear the matter.
The Supreme Court specifically advised the judges assigned to hear the case not to recuse themselves merely because of circumstances created by any party. The Bench directed that the matter should be heard continuously on a day-to-day basis starting from July 13.
Directions Issued to High Court: The Supreme Court further directed the Registrar General of the Punjab and Haryana High Court to submit a compliance report after the Division Bench concludes hearing and reserves judgment. The direction was issued to ensure that the proceedings move forward without further delay.
While the reasons for the individual recusals were not discussed in detail during the hearing, the Supreme Court’s intervention focused on ensuring that the case receives an effective hearing and that judicial proceedings are not stalled.
The latest order reinforces the Court’s emphasis on maintaining the smooth functioning of judicial institutions and preventing procedural developments from frustrating the adjudication of disputes.