‘Black day’: Allahabad High Court judge recuses, says litigants ‘tried to approach’ him

Justice Krishan Pahal recused from hearing the case.

‘Affront to judicial propriety’: Court

Justice Pahal noted that the cases had been fixed for final hearing and orders were likely to be delivered later. However, he observed that efforts were subsequently made by the litigating parties to approach him. The court observed that the very foundation of the judiciary rests on the public’s unwavering confidence that justice is delivered impartially, fearlessly and free from any external influence. It said that even the most subtle or clandestine attempt to interfere with or influence the judicial decision-making process amounts to a direct assault on the rule of law.

The court further observed that even if a legally correct order were ultimately passed in favour of the party, it could still be viewed with suspicion. “The order, irrespective of its legal correctness and intrinsic merit, would be susceptible to an unwarranted but damaging inference that it was the product of extraneous influence or inducement rather than an impartial judicial determination,” the order read.

Emphasising that “justice must manifestly and unquestionably appear to have been done”, Justice Pahal said any attempt by a litigant or counsel to establish an extra-judicial channel of communication with a judge in relation to a pending matter was incompatible with the ethics of the legal profession and constitutional values underpinning judicial independence. He termed such conduct “an affront to judicial propriety” and “utterly intolerable”.

Justice Pahal said that it was proper for him to recuse from hearing the case in order to preserve the dignity of the institution and eliminate even the slightest apprehension regarding the impartiality of the proceedings.

“This Court, therefore, considers it wholly inappropriate to proceed further with the matters. In order to preserve the dignity of the institution, to protect the purity of the judicial process, and to eliminate even the faintest apprehension regarding the impartiality of the adjudication, this Court deems it proper to recuse itself from further consideration of the cases,” the court observed.

He, therefore, directed that the matters be placed before the Chief Justice for assignment to an appropriate bench.

Before concluding, the court observed that the independence of the judiciary is a constitutional guarantee owed to every citizen and warned that any practice creating an impression that judicial orders could be influenced through private approaches was “a menace to the administration of justice” deserving the strongest institutional condemnation.