Now the matter will be heard by the Bench of Justice Smt. Bharti Dangre and Justice Smt. Manjusha Deshpande.
This is the second High Court Judge who recused from Disha Salian’s case. Earlier Justice Sandesh Patil recused from the case as he earlier represented CBI as a Prosecutor.
The Court also accepted the request of Salian’s counsel to record the reason for recusal in the order, in view of the Constitution Bench judgment in Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Assn. (Recusal Matter) v. Union of India, (2016) 5 SCC 808.
Mumbai: The matter was listed high on board before the Bench of Justice Sarang Kotwal and Justice Aashish Chavan.
The Court listed all connected matters today, including the perjury and contempt petitions seeking directions for issuance of arrest warrants against Aditya Thackeray, Advocate Sudeep Pasbola and Investigating Officer Shailendra Nagarkar.
When the matter was called out, Justice Aashish Chavan informed Salian’s counsel, Advocate Nilesh Ojha, that he would recuse from the case because he owns a flat in the society where Disha Salian died.
Advocate Ojha then pointed out that, as per the Constitution Bench judgment in Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Assn. (Recusal Matter) v. Union of India, (2016) 5 SCC 808, a Judge who recuses from a case must record the reason for recusal in the order.
The Bench accepted the request and passed a reasoned order recording the ground of recusal.
In Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Assn. (Recusal Matter) v. Union of India, (2016) 5 SCC 808, the Supreme Court held as under:
“71. […] Being an institution whose hallmark is transparency, it is only proper that the Judge discharging high and noble duties, at least broadly indicate the reasons for recusing from the case so that the litigants or the well-meaning public may not entertain any misunderstanding that the recusal was for altogether irrelevant reasons like the cases being very old, involving detailed consideration, decision on several questions of law, a situation where the Judge is not happy with the roster, a Judge getting unduly sensitive about the public perception of his image, a Judge wanting not to cause displeasure to anybody, a Judge always wanting not to decide any sensitive or controversial issues, etc. Once reasons for recusal are indicated, there will not be any room for attributing any motive for the recusal. To put it differently, it is part of his duty to be accountable to the Constitution by upholding it without fear or favour, affection or ill will. Therefore, I am of the view that it is the constitutional duty, as reflected in one’s oath, to be transparent and accountable, and hence, a Judge is required to indicate reasons for his recusal from a particular case. This would help to curb the tendency for forum shopping.”
