Chief Justice Nagu recuses from hearing M3M’s case citing propriety concerns after administrative action

Chief Justice Sheel Nagu today, “in all fairness”, recused himself from hearing a petition filed by M3M group director Roop Bansal after raising, on his own motion, the issue of deciding the matter judicially when he had earlier dealt with it administratively.

At the very outset of the hearing, the Chief Justice himself questioned whether there was any objection to his hearing the case on the judicial side after having withdrawn it from a Single Bench on the administrative side. Appearing for Bansal, senior advocates Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Puneet Bali responded by saying written objection did not exist, but his client had issued instructions to formally raise one.

“Then in all fairness, I will allot this case to some other Bench for hearing,” Chief Justice Nagu asserted. The recusal is significant as it arises from the legal principle questioning the appropriateness of a Chief Justice hearing a matter on the judicial side after having dealt with it administratively.

Singhvi clarified that his own stance was neutral, but insisted that the question went to the heart of judicial propriety. “There are innumerable instances, to your Lordships’ knowledge, to my knowledge, where the Chief Justice of India downwards, every Chief Justice of the High Court, even when remotely dealing with a matter on the administrative side, has refused to deal with it on the judicial side. This is a standard practice,” he submitted, adding that the issue was not personal but one of maintaining the appearance of justice.

Counsel for the Enforcement Directorate Zoheb Hussain, appearing virtually, opposed the objection, warning that it could set “a slightly dangerous precedent.” “What the office of the honourable Chief Justice does on the administrative side is something which never ever comes in the way of the judicial decision-making for the simple reason, allotment of cases by the very nature of the office of the honourable Chief Justice being the master of the roster is an inherent part of the duty,” the ED counsel submitted.

Chief Justice Nagu observed that no such objection had been raised earlier. “This only cropped up during the vacation when I had so much… I was thinking about this case, that this may be an objection, but nobody took that objection,” the Bench observed.

Singhvi explained he personally had no difficulty arguing the matter, but his clients had specifically instructed him to raise the point. “Your Lordship is right. I think that is a very fair comment. If the clients have some point of taking, a point like that, I think, in the larger interest of things, it is better for your Lordships to adopt the powers your Lordship is thinking of,” Singhvi said.

Chief Justice Nagu then recused himself, ruling that “in all fairness” the matter should go before another Bench to ensure that justice was not only done but also appeared to be done.

The case had drawn attention after the Chief Justice, acting on oral and written complaints, took the unusual step of requisitioning the case record from the Single Judge who had heard the matter and reserved the verdict. Bansal, among other things, was seeking the quashing of an FIR registered under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act and 120-B (criminal conspiracy) of the IPC.

Singhvi, during the course of arguments, pointed out that the allegations against him were that he conspired with a judge to get benefits. “There is a judgment in the same proceedings by a special anti-corruption judge –– PMLA judge, Panchkula, which notes that that judge had no cases of M3M group pending before him and none were dealt with him in his capacity till April 17, 2023…”

Haryana Tribune