Justice Milind N. Jadhav, Bombay High Court
Litigant Cannot Dictate: Bombay High Court Judge Rejects Plea Seeking His Recusal
|The Bombay High Court said that a Judge is bound to hear the cases allotted as per the roster notified by the Chief Justice.
The Bombay High Court observed that a litigant cannot dictate to the Court to avoid his case by a Judge who is alloted jurisdiction as per the roster.
An Interim Application was filed for recusal from hearing three Writ Petitions by the Court which were filed in the year 2016 and were admitted in 2024 by Justice Amit Borkar.
A Single Bench of Justice Milind N. Jadhav remarked, “The Judge, who is hearing the case, can decide to avoid the case if necessary. But a litigant cannot dictate to the Court to avoid his case by a Judge who is allotted the jurisdiction by the Hon’ble the Chief Justice as per the roster. If such a practice is started, the litigants will pick and choose the Judge who has to hear their case. The same cannot be allowed.”
The Bench said that a Judge is bound to hear the cases allotted as per the roster notified by the Chief Justice.
Advocate Vijay Kurle appeared on behalf of the Applicant/Petitioner while Senior Advocate Pravin Samdani and Advocate Nimesh Bhatt appeared on behalf of the Respondents.
Brief Facts
The Writ Petitions in this case arose out of proceedings initiated under Sections 70B, 43, and 32G of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (MTALA). According to the Applicant, since the Writ Petitions were admitted, they ought to be heard only in the ordinary course of business. Applicant was aggrieved because in April and May 2025, the Writ Petitions were listed before the predecessor Court (Coram: Justice Sandeep V. Marne) when the assignment was with that Court. That Court passed an Order and posted the matters for final hearing to June 20, 2025. Petitions did not reach hearing; therefore, Advocate for Respondents moved the Court by praecipe, stating that one contesting Respondent is 87 years old and pointed out an Order seeking listing of Petitions before the Bench.
Hence, Petitions were listed on July 7. When Petitions reached hearing, Advocate for Petitioners refused to argue and persuaded the Court to adjourn the matters to another date. On July 21, he did not appear but Petitioner No. 2 appeared in-person along with his father, informing the Court that he had filed a Complaint before the Chief Justice of High Court to initiate criminal prosecution against the current Bench and previous Bench (Justice Sandeep V. Marne) on various grounds which were serious: bribery and corruption. The matters were adjourned to August 4. Hence, an Interim Application was filed for recusal.
Court’s Observations
The High Court in view of the above facts observed, “Petitioners cannot decide the course of action of the Court and should not interfere with the discretion and prerogative of this Court. Petitioners or their Advocate are never denied the opportunity of hearing by this Court. Even today Petitioners are unwilling to argue their Petitions and are requesting for adjournment and recusal of the Court from hearing these matters and have told the Court to pass order on their Interim Application.”
The Court noted that, to allege reasonable apprehension of bias by filing such a blatantly false complaint against the Court cannot be accepted nor it is admissible on Petitioners’ own case.
“The reason of reasonable apprehension of bias therefore is unsubstantiated and merely stated in the Application. It is completely vague and insufficient. Hence this ground is unsustainable and is dismissed on Petitioners’ own facts pleaded in the complaint”, it added.
The Court said that there has to be an element of fact prima facie seen on record to allege such bias and reasonable doubt which is clearly absent in this case.
“If I were to accede to the prayer for my recusal on the above grounds, I would be initiating a wrong practice and laying down a wrong precedent. A Judge may recuse on his own from a case entrusted to him by the Chief Justice and that would be a matter of his own choosing. But recusal at the asking of a litigating party, unless justified (emphasis supplied) must never to be acceded to. This would give the impression of the Judge being scared out of the case, just by the sheer force of the objection (which is clearly unfounded)”, it further remarked.
The Court emphasised that recusal is not to be forced by any litigant to choose a Bench and it is for the Judge to decide to recuse.
“The embarrassment of hearing the arguments for recusal should not be a compelling reason to recuse. The law laid down in various decisions which are referred to and reiterated herein above has compelled me not to recuse from the case and to perform my duty irrespective of the consequences, as nothing should come in the way of dispensation of justice or discharge of duty as a Judge and judicial decision-making”, it also said.
The Court observed that there is absolutely no room for prejudice or bias and justice has to be pure, untainted, uninfluenced by any factor and even decision for recusal cannot be influenced by any outside forces.
“In my opinion, I would be committing a grave blunder by recusing in the circumstances on the grounds which are prayed for and if I do so, I will be setting a bad precedent. It is only for the interest of the judiciary (which is supreme) and the system that has compelled me to not recuse myself”, it added.
Conclusion
Moreover, the Court said that a litigant cannot dictate to the Court that the case should be avoided by a Judge.
“I am confident that I am upholding the oath I have taken, and I am discharging my duty in accordance with the Constitution of India. I am exercising my judicial powers in accordance with the law and the Constitution of India. A person threatening the Court, stating that he has filed a complaint against the Judge and therefore the case should be avoided by that Judge, cannot be accepted at all”, it noted.
The Court, therefore, concluded that the Interim Application and the Complaint filed is nothing but a sheer abuse of the due process of law based on serious but completely unsubstantiated allegations against two Judges of the Court and the Interim Application is therefore required to be dismissed with exemplary costs.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Interim Application and imposed a cost of Rs. 50,000/- on the Applicant.
Cause Title- Kalpesh Rajendra Jain v. Prabhavat Ramniklal Shah Since deceased through Legal Heirs Pratibha Shailesh Shah and Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025:BHC-AS:34904)
Appearance:
Applicant: Advocates Vijay Kurle and Jayendra Manchekar.
Respondents: Senior Advocate Pravin Samdani, Advocates Nimesh Bhatt, Aditya Shiralkar, and Mani Thevar.