The National Green Tribunal (NGT) on Friday rejected a plea that had raised questions of propriety and potential conflict of interest against its judicial member Justice Sudhir Agarwal. The NGT said the plea appeared to be “bench hunting” and it had no reason to accept the applicant’s prayer for placing his case before another bench. The plea in question was an intervention application filed by an advocate, Gaurav Bansal, in an ongoing petition on non-compliance of pollution norms in Himachal Pradesh. Bansal had alleged that Justice Agarwal had heard a case (unrelated to the Himachal matter) in which his son, Gaurav Agarwal, was appointed an amicus by the Tribunal. Although Justice Agarwal was not part of the bench hearing the unrelated case when the NGT ordered Gaurav Agarwal’s appointment as amicus, judicial propriety, Bansal said, required that these cases are not heard by him when one of the parties is directly related to the judge. He said he did not feel secure about getting justice from the bench headed by Justice Agarwal and thus prayed that the Himachal application be heard by another bench. An amicus is an officer of the court and the Tribunal relies on the amicus while hearing a case. Friday’s order was passed by the Tribunal’s principal bench comprising Justice Agarwal and expert member Dr Afroz Ahmad, which heard the intervention application on August 20. Before filing the intervention application, Bansal had also flagged the same issues to the NGT chairperson, Justice Prakash Shrivastava, in a complaint on May 13. In its order Friday, the Tribunal said Bansal’s approach was selective since his complaint as well as the intervention application seeking shifting of the Himachal application to another bench was made only after the Tribunal chairperson rotated the roster in May. It pointed out that Justice Agarwal was earlier part of a bench presided by the NGT chairperson and that he was rotated to another bench with effect from May 13. It said that the intervention application lacked “bona-fide” and was not based on cogent reasons. “This kind of practice normally in judicial institutions is well-known and called forum shopping or bench hunting. Such practice/attempt has been severely criticised. It has been held that no such opportunity should be allowed to any person in this regard,” the order stated. The order referred to Justice Agarwal’s son, advocate Gaurav Agarwal, as “an Advocate G”. While it did not address the issues — of propriety and possible conflict of interest — raised by Bansal in the intervention application, it said allowing parties to create ground and seek recusal will destroy “the very substratum of justice system” as the judge has no platform, occasion or opportunity to defend himself. Rejecting the intervention application, the Tribunal ordered that it be listed before the bench that was hearing the Himachal application prior to the rotation of the roster. “We accordingly direct this matter to be listed before the bench concerned after obtaining directions from the Hon'ble chairperson,” the order said. On the issue of advocate Gaurav Agarwal's appointment as amicus in three matters, the NGT order said, “So far as order of another bench appointing Advocate G as Amicus Curie (sic) in the last more than one year in two or three matters is concerned, basically it is judicial order of another bench and we do not find it appropriate to discuss the same in this matter.”
