Supreme Court judge Justice Arun Mishra Tuesday took umbrage to a social media campaign and news reports seeking his recusal from a Constitution bench which is hearing a batch of pleas challenging the validity of provisions related to compensation in the Land Acquisition Act.
A visibly annoyed Justice Mishra, heading a 5-judge bench, referred to certain social media posts and articles and said: "I will be the first person to sacrifice if the integrity of institution is at stake.
"I am not biased and don't get influenced by anything on earth. If I am satisfied that I am biased then only I will recuse myself from hearing this case".
He was also critical of the word "impartial", used repeatedly by parties seeking his recusal, and said: "This word hurts me. Don't use it as it will send wrong message to the common man".
Justice Mishra was part of the verdict in February last year which held that land acquisition by a government agency could not be quashed for delay on the part of land owners in accepting compensation within five years due to reasons such as lingering court cases.
In 2014, another verdict had held however that land acquisition can be quashed on account of the delay in accepting the compensation.
On March 6 last year, the apex court had said that a larger bench would test the correctness of the verdicts delivered by these two benches of similar strength on the same issue.
More From This Section
As soon as the 5-judge bench, also comprising Justices Indira Banerjee, Vineet Sharan, M R Shah and S Ravindra Bhat, assembled for hearing the case on Tuesday, senior advocate Shyam Divan, appearing for some farmer associations and individuals raised objection over Justice Mishra hearing the matter.
He sought Justice Mishra's recusal on the ground of judicial propriety saying that the bench is examining the correctness of a verdict, which was also authored by him.
"It was a over hundred page judgement in which Justice Mishra has expressed his mind and said that other view taken by a bench of similar strength is per incuriam (bad in law)," Divan said, adding that a judge cannot sit in appeal of his own judgement.
He said the question of propriety raised by the parties is an altogether different formation and is an attempt to malign the institution.
Justice Mishra, however, said: "This issue is different. It is not so simple. Letters are being written. Social media posts are there. Articles are being written in newspaper. You and I know what is the issue. I can tell you but not in open court.
"Entire institution and the Chief Justice of India is being maligned on social media. If anyone can be maligned like this, then how will the court decide the issue. Then all of us are disqualified not only Justice Arun Mishra is disqualified."