HC pulls up Sajjan Kumar for wasting crt time, junks his plea

Congress leader Sajjan Kumar was today pulled up by Delhi High Court making allegations of bias against a judge and seeking transfer of a 1984 anti-Sikh riots case, saying it was "a frontal attack intended to humiliate the judge" and warned of invoking contempt proceedings.
A bench of justices Gita Mittal and P S Teji rejected pleas by Kumar and two convicts alleging bias by one member of the division bench which is hearing the case and said it was an "attempt to prevent hearings in these cases".
However, the bench decided not to initiate contempt proceedings or slapping penalties on Kumar and two others, saying it would only delay the proceedings in the case relating to incidents which happened 32 years ago.

In strongly worded observations, the bench said "the attempt to single out a judge and address judges constituting a bench by name and making personal allegations not supported by record against them are really a frontal attack intended to humiliate the judge concerned in public spaces and browbeat them giving in to illegally and improperly made demands and deserves to be condemned in highest tone."
While warning Kumar and convicts -- ex-MLA Mahender Yadav and Kishan Khokkar of contempt, the bench however said "we exercise restraint and desist from invoking our jurisdiction under the Contempt of Courts Act and also in not initiating penal action against the applicants as commended in above set out judicial precedents, only for the reason these cases brook no further delay.

"No digression, distraction or diversion by any other proceedings which could result in protraction of the hearings in the main appeals would be in the interests of justice.

"Though strongly inclined to impose costs for dilatory tactics adopted by way of these applications, we refrain from doing only in the larger interests of justice which would be met by expeditious disposal of the cases."
The bench said the applications were "baseless and the apprehensions misconceived and malafide only intended to delay the hearings in these cases as well as connected appeals. I find no merit in these applications which are hereby dismissed."

It said "specific allegations are made against a judge conducting a case to embarrass him and compel him to recuse himself from hearing the case or transfer the case to another bench. The Supreme Court has repeatedly mandated courts that such attacks should be seriously dealt with."
"That riots happened in 1984 in New Delhi, the capital of
India in which hundreds perished, is not disputed. That despite passage of 32 years thereafter, cases in the complaints emanating from those riots have not attained finality in adjudication has generated a sense of injustice in the victims as well as those who feel that they have been unjustly accused of commission of the crimes.

"Most importantly, it has lent arrogance to the actual perpetrators and created scepticism with judicial process in the society at large. It generates a view that serious crime such as mass violence goes undetected and unpunished. We feel that this may have emboldened several and encouraged other such incidents which have occurred in the country thereafter leaving black marks on our history," the bench noted in its 140-page judgement.
The court's order came on a plea by Kumar, acquitted by a trial court in 2013 in the case pertaining to the killing of five Sikhs by a mob in Delhi Cantonment's Raj Nagar area here during the 1984 riots, seeking recusal of Justice Teji from hearing the appeal against the Congress leader's acquittal.

Similar pleas were filed by Yadav and Kishan Khokkar, who were handed three year of jail term each for lesser roles and are presently out on bail. They have also challenged their conviction in the high court.
The court has also junked their pleas and said it was making an "effort to bring a closure to these prosecutions (pending as appeals in Delhi High Court), that too on fervent and impassioned pleas initiated by an ailing eighty eight year of an old co-convict (Captain Bhagmal) undergoing rigorous life imprisonment, supported by other life convicts, which has led to our having to hear protracted arguments on the recusal of one of us thereby expending valuable judicial time thereon, instead of proceeding with the merits of the case."

It further observed that the applications "manifest the insidious attempt to create a facade of apprehension of bias by pleading a non-existent factual foundation" to support the prayer for recusal.
"Had there been any apprehension of bias or suspicion of bias, the applicants would have objected to the very order of committal of the case on March 20, 2010 by the ACMM, the order dated March 25, 2010 by the District Judge-VII and would have filed applications of objection before the District Judge-VI on March 27, 2010 itself," the bench said.