Bench under pressure: I don't ever want to hear a Sahara matter again, Justice Khehar tells registry

Supreme Court Justice Jagdish Singh Khehar told the Supreme Court registry on 6 May, the evening after passing its scathing judgment against Sahara chief Subrata Roy and his lawyers, that he did not want to be on the new bench that would hear the Sahara matter after the bench headed by retiring Justice KS Radhakrishnan would be reconstituted after the holidays, reported the Indian Express.

According to the paper, Khehar also said that he did not want to be on any bench hearing any matters related to a Sahara group company in future. Justice Radhakrishnan had made comments last week that he had faced “pressure, tension and strain” over the Sahara hearings, which found voice in an unprecedented written judicial diatribe against lawyers abusing the system and trying to manipulate the justice system.

Comments

vilas 15 May 2014, 09:56
+3 -0
It is not good for the majesty of supreme court. Is it legally permissible for a supreme court judge to request not to be put on a bench hearing any particular litigant in future ?. what if there is a need to form a full bench or a larger bench to decide on a particular matter related to the particular litigant ?. will the litigant have no right to intervene in any matter pending before the judge?.
Always Happens 15 May 2014, 13:57
+0 -1
Vilas, judges can recuse themselves from a matter if they believe that they are either conflicted or their judgement may be impaired due to bias. I would think after the order passed, he may want to not be in any other controversy in relation to Sahara and therefore may have recused himself.
Guest 15 May 2014, 17:42
+1 -0
Always happens - the recusal here isn't for the right reasons. The latest Sahara decision clearly shows the reason why the Jethmalanis and Dhawans wanted to cast aspersions on the judges was to ensure some other bench - which would have no clue of the litigation which has spanned some 4 years now - rehears the matter in its entirety, consuming many hundred more man hours. However disgusted Khekar might be, it is the majesty of the law that is at stake when a SC judge decides not to hear a matter because of an abusive litigant.