Recusal of a judge
Guest
(Querist) 15 October 2011
This query is : Resolved
what is the proceedure for asking a high court judge to recuse himself from the case on the account of loss of faith?
prabhakar singh
(Expert) 15 October 2011
can not this much be answered by experts in criminal law practicing in high court.????
Arun Kumar Bhagat
(Expert) 15 October 2011
You can verbally remind the Judge that either of the parties are known to him or he had/has interest in the subject matter and this submission may be considered and recorded. After that it is up to concerned Judge to release the matter or hear the matter thwarting the apprehension.
Guest
(Querist) 15 October 2011
mr. bhagat,can a written application be filed regarding the same. I have read a few citations to that effect.
Daksh
(Expert) 15 October 2011
Dear Mr.Dontbegod,
A presiding officer in order to recuse himself from the case has to mark the matter to the judge in charge. Like wise if a party for whatever reason wants to get their matter transferred likewise they have two alternative either to make a pleading/application in this regard to the same presiding officer and directly approach the Chief Justice of the respective High Court in this regard mentioning the reasons for the same.
Best Regards
Daksh
Guest
(Querist) 15 October 2011
Daksh, If the matter relates to a division bench of high court, then?
Guest
(Querist) 15 October 2011
I want to ask Mr. Prabhakar, that if you are not assuming yrself competent to answer a query, then why do you quote it.
WHETHER, THE INITIAL QUERY REALLY RELATES TO CRIMINAL LAW.
I AM ASTOUNDED PRABHAKAR JI.
prabhakar singh
(Expert) 15 October 2011
Oh!
look i am civil law practicener.i have not moved even an application for even any bailable offence in my entire carrier of practice.But it is not that i do not understand criminal law or those field of law
in which my experience is zero.
But your case in particular related to procedure where only practice makes a man perfect,hence i avoided.At substantive level of law i can through light a lot as there i need to know which legislation governs it what would be its'implication on given facts.I know a lot about recusal but as a theory of jurisprudence,how it should proceed in high court is unknown to me.
Guest
(Querist) 15 October 2011
PRABHAKR JI, WHAT YOU KNOW, YOU CAN SHARE WITH US.
WHAT IS THE JUSTIFICATION OF SUCH KNOWLEDGE, WHICH IS CONFINED?
WE DO SHARE THEORATICAL KNOWLEDGE ALSO. NO BAR.
ANYWAY THANKS FOR SPARING AT LEAST TIME.
prabhakar singh
(Expert) 15 October 2011
Recusal is an important matter and not something that should be taken lightly. Judges should not recuse themselves for no reason. Judges have a duty to sit and decide matters brought before them unless a valid basis exists for recusal. There is as much obligation for a judge not to recuse himself where there is no valid reason as there is for him to do so where there is such a reason. And the parties have an incentive for not filing recusal motions on a whim as well: If the judge presiding at the recusal hearing determines that the recusal was brought “solely for delay and without sufficient cause,” then the judge may .......
The reasons for recusal are governed by Rule . Some of the reasons are very specific. A judge may not sit on a case where he has a financial interest in the case, whether in one of the parties to the case or in the “subject matter in controversy.” Judges have an obligation to stay informed of their various financial interests and that of their spouses and children so they know when they may run afoul.
A judge must also recuse himself if the judge, his former law partner, or his close relative has been or will likely be a material witness in the case.
A judge’s actually having served as a lawyer on the case is a grounds for disqualification, not simply recusal.
Most contested recusals, however, fall under the two more general “catch-all”.But “bias or prejudice” does not simply mean any unfavorable disposition toward a party.
The test for deciding whether bias or prejudice has been proven is whether the movant showed facts to establish that a reasonable person, knowing all the circumstances involved, would harbor doubts as to the impartiality of the trial judge.
prabhakar singh
(Expert) 15 October 2011
This is more than enough for you till you deny me ,my existence,and do not endure who i am,not god but enlightener.
Guest
(Querist) 15 October 2011
I AM VERY MUCH OBLIGED BY SHARING YOUR WORTHY VIEW ON MY PAGE.
I SHALL BE LIFE LONG GRATEFUL TO YOU.
IF YOU HAVE SUCH A VAST KNOWLEDGE THEN WHY DO YOU SHOW YOURSELF AS NON COMPETENT TO ANSWER CERTAIN QUERIES.
I PRAY BEFORE YOU TO ANSWER A DOUBT AND THIS CLARIFICATION WILL BEHOLDEN ME FOR LIFELONG.
WHETHER A JUDGE CAN RECUSE HIMSELF, IF HE HAD BEEN STANDING COUNSEL OF THE RESPONDENT CORPORATION FOR LONG PERIOD ?
Guest
(Querist) 01 November 2011
THANKS WITH REGARDS PRABHAKAR JI.
