New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday declined to entertain a petition seeking probe into as to why Karnataka High Court judge Justice M Nagaprasanna recused from hearing some matters.
A bench of Justices Abhay S Oka, Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Augustine George Masih said highly objectionable and irrelevant averments have been made in the petition.
"Some of the averments cast aspersions on the single judge….," noted the bench, while pulling the petitioner also over the manner of filing the petition.
The petitioner's counsel urged the bench not to record this sentence in the order. However, Justice Oka pointed out to the counsel a paragraph in the petition, where averments have been made against the judge. The bench asked if it is feasible to make such a plea as a recusal related to discretion of a judge.
"What is this? This will send wrong signals. Guidelines are fine but you can't seek a relief directing probe in under what circumstances the judge recused, it will show some other motive is there. You want to press," the bench queried a counsel, appearing for petitioner Chandraprabha and others.
The bench told the counsel either she withdraws the petition or it will be dismissed by the court and made it clear to the counsel that observations will be made in the order and added, “you cannot dictate to us what order should be passed”. Justice Oka said the petition is casting aspersions on the judge and the plea lacked bona fide.
The bench said the petitioners’ should seek relief only on principles. “What was the need for putting allegations against all private parties and casting aspersions against the judges," the bench asked.
The bench asked, are the judges also so weak according to you? “We are not sure of the motivations. If the judge stays up till 7 PM you are not bothered about it."
After hearing submissions, the bench allowed the counsel to withdraw the petition. The bench made it clear that it has not adjudicated upon whether it will be appropriate to lay down guidelines for recusal.
The bench, in its order, said that irrelevant aversions casting aspersions against judges were made on recusal after the case was reserved, and the petitioner sought withdrawal of the petition, “we allow the same".
