CJI says will look into case of Justice Gogoi's ire over lawyer's holiday snaps recusal-request

Gogoi apparently met member of respondent company a year ago while on holidays
Gogoi apparently met member of respondent company a year ago while on holidays

Chief Justice of India (CJI) TS Thakur today said that he would examine the plea of advocate Mrinal Kanti Mandal, against whom Supreme Court judge Justice Ranjan Gogoi’s had ordered action by bar councils after Mandal had requested Gogoi’s recusal.

According to a source present in court and a report by Bar & Bench, Thakur said he would “look into” the matter.

Parijat Sinha, standing counsel of West Bengal and advocate-on-record in the matter at the heart of the spat, appeared for Mandal before the CJI today.

As reported by Legally India on 2 March, Gogoi had passed an order against Mandal on 18 February.

Mandal had asked for Gogoi to recuse himself from hearing the case, since the judge had met members of the respondent company according to photographs published in a publication affiliated to the respondents, showing Gogoi on a family holiday being received by management of respondent entities.

Gogoi had ordered:

We do not see why the learned counsel should have pointed the said fact inasmuch as upon reading of the case record when the matter would have been called out in the normal course the learned judge, if he feels any incapacity or inconvenience to deal with the matter would have recused himself.

The submission made by the learned counsel proceeds on certain presumptions that the learned judge who visited City Palace Museum, Udaipur was aware or made aware subsequently of the pending litigation; that the litigation is pending in his Court; and that the learned judge had been spoken to by the opposite party (the respondents).

The conduct of the learned member(s) of the Bar cannot be appreciated. I (Ranjan Gogoi, J), therefore, refer the matter to the Bar Council of Delhi and the Bar Council of India for taking up appropriate action in respect of the above conduct of Shri Mrinal Kanti Mandal.

Comments

Guest 4 Mar 2016, 13:18
+1 -0
If such trivial things will sabotage judicial proceedings then God knows judges will have to start living in caves.
Dbhattacharyya@hotmail 4 Mar 2016, 18:36
+0 -0
It has becomea style statement to infuriate judges. Somebody writes about back door entry, satyamev jaata posts, some wants judges to refuse for having visited tourist destination. How can a judge be faulted or how can someone even remotely suggest that a judges mind is corrupted because he was given a VIP treatment (in any case it's his entitlement) while visiting a tourist destination. Are the Judges supposed to sit at home behind closed doors. Mandal Sab have faith in our judiciary, lets not create sensationalism.
Sheer Brilliance 5 Mar 2016, 17:00
+0 -0
Brilliant arguments @Dbhattacharyya. Satyamev Jayate you mentioned reminds me of Gandhian judge C S Dharmadhikari whose performance you must have seen in the Aamir Khan Satyamev Jayate serial. This retired Judge is active in other areas also including private schools. His son S C Dharmadhikari is a sitting judge, hearing cases about private schools among other matters. A litigant in a case with Vibgyor High School in Goregaon (the school expelled the kid because the mother filed a complaint against the school, see http://www.dnaindia.com/mumbai/report-goregaon-school-expels-kid-to-punish-parent-1392093) tried to raise this as a reason for recusal because of the judge's father's ties to private schools managements. But the recusal argument failed as you can see in this report http://www.hindustantimes.com/mumbai/find-another-school-court-tells-expelled-girl/story-OSPMuThemuHucsggZgLbZO.html The moral of the story is that recusal request can backfire on the litigant even if they have a strong case otherwise. Trivial arguments can do more harm than good!
Dbhattacharyya 4 Mar 2016, 18:43
+0 -0
One small caveat, Justice Gogoi should have referred the issue to some other Bench,not the hearing but disciplinary action against MK Mandal.It would have been more appropriate for the CJI or another bench to refer to BCI.
Seema Sapra 6 Mar 2016, 01:33
+0 -0
Indian law statements on recusal are quite scarce.

Here's a useful discussion of the law in the US context - Judicial Disqualification, An Analysis of Federal Law, 2010

full text at http://www.fjc.gov/public/pdf.nsf/lookup/judicialdq.pdf/$file/judicialdq.pdf