A Delhi High Court judge today turned down Himachal Pradesh Chief Minister Virbhadra Singh's plea to recuse from hearing his petition in a DA case as he was a close relative of Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi, saying he was capable of judging the matter independently and fairly.
Justice Vipin Sanghi, who dismissed the petition of Singh and his wife for quashing of the disproportionate assets case filed against them by the CBI, said the Congress leader and his lawyers were aware of his relationship with Rohatgi when the hearing in the case had commenced but they made the prayer at a "highly belated" stage after the judgement was reserved.
"As a judge of this court, I owe my allegiance only to the Constitution of India and the laws of the land. I am completely independent - financially and otherwise, and I am not subordinate to any one, much less to the Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi - either on account of his office, or on account of my personal relationship with him," Justice Sanghi said.
Also Read
He said, "I am fully conscious of my responsibilities as a judge of this court and the trust that has been reposed in me - including in my integrity and my independence, by the President of India in appointing me as a judge of this court.
He said he would have himself recused from a case if he had even the slightest inkling or doubt in his mind that he would not be able to decide the cause freely or independently.
"Like all men, I am my own conscience keeper. I would myself recuse from a case if I have even the slightest inkling or doubt in my mind that I would not be able to decide the cause freely or independently, or that it would be improper for me to judge a cause, even though, I find myself in no way incapable of judging the cause independently and fairly."
Singh had sought Justice Sanghi's recusal from the matter on the ground that Sanghi and Rohatgi were related to each other and the Attorney General had represented CBI before the Supreme Court and pressed for transfer of the proceedings from the Himachal Pradesh High Court to the Delhi High Court.
The judge said if the parties had any apprehension, they should have mentioned it at the start of the proceedings and if such a request had been made at the initial stage itself, he might have recused from the case.
"... I may have recused from the case - not because I find myself incapable/unable to decide this petition strictly on its merits due to my relationship with Rohatgi, but because I have no particular interest in, or attachment with any particular cause that is listed before me as per roster," the judge said, adding that his relationship with Rohatgi does not pose a real danger of bias against Singh.
The court also referred to National Judicial Appointments Commission case in the Supreme Court where Chief Justice J S Khehar was asked to recuse which was rejected by the Constitution bench.
It also said that Singh and his wife's claim that the arguments advanced on their behalf by senior advocates Kapil Sibal and Dayan Krishnan were treated with contempt was "entirely unclear" and the statement has "no basis".
The court also pointed out that while the arguments were advanced by Sibal and Krishnan, the written submissions filed on behalf of Singh and his wife have been settled by senior advocate Ram Jethmalani.
"I am also of the view that if I were to now recuse from the case which has been fully argued before me, and wherein I had reserved judgment on December 15, 2016, I would be guilty of shirking my responsibility as a judge.
"It would also delay the disposal of the case. Delay in the disposal of the petition suits the petitioners, who are enjoying interim protection against arrest and filing of charge sheet in the case," Justice Sanghi said.
In strongly-worded remarks, the judge said the apprehension of bias against them on account of his relationship with Rohatgi carries with it the innuendo that the AG would, in breach of his professional ethics as an advocate, and his (judge) constitutional independence, speak to him about this case.
He also said even though Singh and his wife might be ready to foot the bill of hearings before another judge, there could be no justification for financially burdening the State of Himachal Pradesh, CBI/ Union of India.
The court said it has no control over the thought process through which the petitioners may be going through and the prayer has been made highly belatedly i.E. After the close of the hearing, even though these reasons for making the prayer were available before the start of hearing in the case.
