Supreme Court refuses to accept request for investigation into the reasons for the HC judge’s refusal

The Supreme Court on Thursday (October 24) refused to entertain a petition seeking an inquiry into Karnataka High Court Justice M Nagaprasanna’s recusal after reserving an order in a case, noting that the petition cast aspersions on the judge.

A bank of Justice Abhay Oka, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice Augustine George Masih however, it allowed the petitioner to withdraw the petition and file a new petition restricting itself to prayer seeking guidance on the impeachment of judges.

“After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, we found that questionable and irrelevant statements were made and attempts were made to cast aspersions on the learned judge. Therefore, we were not inclined to entertain this petition. However, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states that he wishes to discuss the question whether the honorable judges are required to give reasons for refusal, especially when the refusal occurs after the case has been fully heard. The learned counsel, therefore, seeks permission to withdraw the petition with liberty to file a fresh petition under prayer clause A. Accordingly, we dismiss the petition as withdrawn with liberty as mentioned above. We make it clear that today we have made no judgment as to whether it is appropriate to establish guidelines regarding refusal”, the Court stated in the order.

The petition was filed after Justice M Nagaprasanna of the Karnataka High Court recused himself from a matter after reserving orders. The plea before the HC sought registration of FIR against the state Lokayukta’s wife and son and investigation into allegations of corruption in the Karnataka judiciary.

During the hearing, lawyer Nisha Tiwari stated that there was no intention to cast aspersions on the judge.

Although the court acknowledged the petitioner’s complaint about the judge’s refusal after reserving the order, it questioned the propriety of ordering an inquiry into the circumstances of the refusal. He commented: “We understand the search for guidelines, but how can an investigation be requested? Can we do this?”

“This will send wrong signals. We understand that after the matter was fully judged, the judge refused, therefore we should consider the feasibility of establishing guidelines. But you cannot seek relief by directing the investigation under what circumstances the judge refused. If you are pressing this prayer, it shows that you have some other motive in all this.,” Judge Oka said.

The Court also opposed the petition on the ground that the Lokayukta was in a position to influence the judiciary. “And do you think the judges are so weak?… In your petition you are insinuating that because of the influence of the Lokayukta, the judge refused,” Justice Oka noted.

The bench challenged the manner of presentation of the petition, saying it suggested oblique motives. Justice Oka pointed out that the petition included detailed allegations against several individuals, which were unnecessary in an appeal seeking guidance on judicial dismissal. He said submissions should have been limited to principles while seeking guidelines.

“What was the need to file all charges against all parties? And cast aspersions on the judge? This is all unnecessary,” he said.

Justice Oka said the statements in the petition cast aspersions on the judge. “This is not the way to file a petition. Read the allegations you have made, such action taken without explanation wastes judicial time, erodes the trust of litigants, raises questions about the independence of the judiciary… Day after day this happens, sometimes we hear the matter and suddenly realize that we know one of the parties or we have some indirect connection and refuse.”

The petitioner’s counsel submitted that there was no intention to cast aspersions and sought permission to amend the petition, stating that there was no indirect motive. However, Judge Oka did not agree, stating that it should be withdrawn.

The Court noted that it was disinclined to consider the petition as “questionable and irrelevant statements” had been made in the petition and that “attempts were made to cast aspersions on the learned judge”. The Court allowed the petitioner to withdraw the petition, with freedom to file a new petition. The Court also clarified that it did not rule on whether guidelines for refusal should be established.

Case no. – Diary nº 49083/2024

Case title – Chandraprabhav. Union of India