Recusal plea no tool for ‘bench hunting’, ‘forum shopping’: Andhra Pradesh High Court

“If the litigants are given the right for seeking recusal of a Judge only on his own caprice and desire, this would open the forum shopping and Bench hunting without any valid reasons and it would definitely affect the confidence of common people on the judicial system. It is the duty of a Judge to hear every matter placed before him without fear or favour or ill will and a Judge must never recuse himself on mere asking of a litigant, unless justified with cogent and reasonable grounds. The deponent, being a counsel, his request cannot be considered at all,” the court said on August 19.

It added, “If such prayer is allowed in a casual manner or without justified reasons, then it would be a precedent and judicial independence would be in danger.”

The advocate claimed of a personal conflict with the presiding judge and said he had first approached the Andhra Pradesh advocate-general in March and later filed an in-house complaint against the judge before the Chief Justice on June 16. According to him, the alleged conflict could hamper his ability to represent the petitioner fearlessly and prejudice the petitioner’s rights under Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India.

Justice Ravi Cheemalapati said that a lawyer cannot seek recusal on personal grounds without explicit instructions from the client.

Advocate’s authority to seek recusal

The high court, going through the affidavit supporting the application had been sworn by the advocate himself, noted that the petitioner had neither affirmed nor verified the allegations made in it. The court said the pleadings could not be treated as having been made on the petitioner’s personal knowledge.

It held that an advocate cannot file a recusal application through a personal affidavit without explicit instructions from the client, particularly when the plea is based on alleged personal enmity between the lawyer and the judge.

The court said that personal differences between an advocate and the presiding judge cannot, by themselves, constitute a valid standalone ground for judicial recusal. Where recusal is sought on facts concerning the case, the court said, the client’s affidavit or explicit instructions would be required, it added.

Examining the material relied upon by the counsel, the court noted that his complaint to the advocate-general referred to seven cases and six of those cases had been dismissed, while another had been disposed of with costs.

However, the court pointed out that all seven matters related to a division bench of which Justice Cheemalapati had been a member. The recusal application before him concerned his hearing of the writ petition as a single judge.

Relying on the Supreme Court’s judgment in R K Anand vs Registrar, Delhi High Court in which the apex court had held that a litigant cannot choose who should be on the bench merely because a judge had earlier taken a view contrary to the litigant’s interest and warned that permitting parties to seek recusal on such grounds could allow litigants to choose benches according to their preferences, undermining judicial independence.

“An advocate cannot file a recusal application solely on the ground that the judge is unfavorable, hostile, or unfriendly. The Supreme Court of India and various High Courts have repeatedly ruled that animosity or tension between a judge and a lawyer is not a valid legal ground for judicial recusal,” the high court said.

Genuine conflicts can warrant recusal

The judgment also clarified that recusal can be justified in cases involving specific and verifiable conflicts of interest. The court referred to circumstances such as an advocate being a close relative of the presiding judge, or the judge having previously acted as counsel or senior advocate for one of the parties in the particular dispute.

But an advocate cannot seek recusal merely because the judge is perceived to be strict, unfriendly or unfavourable, the court said. “Constitutional courts hold that a judge takes an oath to discharge duties ‘without fear or favor’. They cannot step away from a case merely because a lawyer dislikes their demeanor, finds them strict, or perceives them as unfavorable. Succumbing to such requests is viewed as a failure of judicial duty,” the court said.

Justice Cheemalapati said that none of the circumstances warranting recusal had been pleaded, established or even urged in the present case.

“Forcing a judge to recuse via intimidation or by alleging personal hostility is routinely treated as a calculated attempt to ‘browbeat’ the court. Courts view such applications as a tactical ploy for ‘forum shopping’– an illegal attempt to move a case away from a strict judge to a more lenient one. The Bar Council of India can take disciplinary action against an advocate for making unfounded personal allegations against the judiciary, as it violates an advocate’s duty to maintain the dignity of the court,” said the court.

The court ultimately dismissed the application, describing the application as “misconceived, devoid of merits”.