The Supreme Court today directed the registrar general of the Tripura High Court to file an application before it for its nod if litigants in a case in which judges have recused, agree for transfer of their matter to the Gauhati High Court.
A bench headed by Chief Justice J S Khehar also transfered one case to the Gauhati High Court after both agrieved parties were in consensus for transfer.
The bench also comprising Justices N V Ramana, D Y Chandrachud and Sanjay Kishan Kaul said that in most of the cases where judges of the high court have recused have one of the parties as government or a statuatory body.
"The government or the statuatory body has no problem in going to Gauhati but it is difficult for the private individual to bear extra expense of lodging, food and travel. We cannot force them to do so," it said.
The court said that it will be better if parties after reaching consensus approach the registrar general of the high court who is always there and he in turn can file an interlocutory application (IA) before it seeking approval for transfer to the Gauhati High Court.
The bench was hearing a plea of which suo motu cognisance was taken after Tripura High Court Chief Justice T Vaiphei wrote a letter to Chief Justice of India J S Khehar that due to shortage of judges, it had become difficult to set up a separate bench if a judge recused himself from hearing a particular case on the ground of conflict of interest.
The Tripura High Court at Agartala, which was established on March 23, 2013, has a sanctioned strength of four judges including the chief justice, and at present there are three serving judges. There are at least 26 cases in which recusal has been sought by the judges there.
Faced with the unique problem of recusal by judges at the Tripura High Court, the apex court had on January 23 asked the Centre to explore the possibility of using an article of the Constitution on appointment of judges of other high courts as sitting judges to address the issue of recusal.
Taking note of the letter, it had asked Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi to consider invoking Article 224-A by which a judge could be appointed.
Article 224-A of Constitution says "...The Chief Justice of a High Court for any State may at any time, with the previous consent of the President, request any person who has held the office of a Judge of that Court or of any other High Court to sit and act as a Judge of the High Court for that State.
Rohatgi, however, disagreed with the suggestion and said
a judge appointed at one high court cannot go to another.
The AG then suggested that 26 cases in which recusal has been sought by the judges at the Tripura High Court should be transferred to the Gauhati High Court for dispossal.
The apex court had earlier issued notice to the registrar general of the Tripura High Court to ascertain from the parties whether they want their cases to be transferred to the Gauhati High Court and sought a reply.
The apex court on January 20 had decided to examine the grievance of the chief justice of the Tripura High Court seeking to transfer some cases to other high courts in the eventuality of recusal by one of the three judges there from hearing a particular matter.
It had issued notice to the Centre and sought assistance of Rohatgi in the matter.
