Recusal of judge from hearing cases

i agree with Mr Goyal

such a step is warranted when circumstances demand

Saw this in Lawandotherthings:

K.V.Dhananjay:



This 'recusal' business is simply going out of hand in India. A judge of the Karnataka High Court, L.Narayanswamy recused himself a few days ago in a case that involved a Bank in which the judge happens to hold some 'account'. If only this were to be taken as a precedent, no judge of the Karnataka High Court could possibly hear any case that involves the BESCOM (the sole State company that distributes electricity in Bangalore and which, of necessity, powers judge's residences and the High Court). Or say, a case involving Toyota Motors Company because Judges of the High Court are daily transported in cars manufactured by Toyota Motors. Better yet, no judge in India (excepting judges of rural courts who must be waiting for their sanctioned computers) could possibly adjudicate on any dispute involving Microsoft Corporation simply because Microsoft happens to manufacture the operating system or one or more applications installed in computers used by or for judges.

A judge should, invariably, recuse himself while adjudicating a dispute involving a company the shares of which are held by that Judge. After all, shares of publicly traded companies have no intrinsic value and a decision may itself become 'market moving information'. Further, the securities laws in India, like it is in other countries, forbids the acquisition, possession or dissemination of 'market moving information' by any person except through sanctioned channels. A judge who generates 'market moving information' through his decision is placed in 'no better privileged position' under the securities laws than say, any insider within that company. 

recusing to hear high profile cases by judges is simply not necessary had there been no media explosion.imagine the position of a judge,dragged into public domain by media although he gave a fair pronouncement,for the simple reason that he is a very distant relative of one of the co-accused.so,there is nothing wrong in being cautious.

It should be kept into mind that "Justice not only be done, it must appear to have been done". But the trend shows that the Honorable Judges are loosing their stong will power, courage and self confidence. Are the Judges going to care the public opinion to the standard of  "Ram" who abendoned his wife "Sita" on the basis of mere comment of a washerman?

It gives negetive signals to the citizens. A judge is a judge. He shouldn't escape from the hearing cases and he has to deliver verdict without any partiality. 

It is very wonder judges are unaware of the investments made by their wives.

STRAIGHT FORWARD PEOPLE ALWAYS STRAIGHT ALL THE TIME,WHO EVER HE / SHE MAY BE.

HOW CAN ONE CAN INSIST  TO BE UNDER CONTROL/INFORM ALL TRANS OFA MAJOR CHILD/WIFE WHO R SELF EARNING NOT DEPENDEDENT ON ?

 Chief Justice of Karnataka is a good example.

Judge is a Judge. And he is Indian Judge. There are plenty of ways to support as well as escape from there own laws. This is India. So many lawyers are standing against Dinakaran at that time any one supported Dinakaran? No. There is a law the Court will hear what is correct and what is wrong.

I strongly feel that a judge who himself or his family member is interested in any subject matter should not hear the matter. In fact that should be done before the hearing of the matter begins. Why they wait till the day of hearing when they know before hand that the matter is assigned to them. If faith in judiciary is to maintained no person interested in a cause should hear the matter. people are not as straight as Mr. Satya Prakash. some of them go on talking silly and mischievous things so as to damage the image of judiciary.

 Continue with MY LORD and they have become LORDS.

1.  If the Judge is a  "righteous" person,  he will hear and pronounce on any matter, even if the judge is a interested person or not.

2.  During the oath taking as a Judge, there is nothing in it to mention that the judge will not take up matters in which he may or may not be interested.  He is under oath to  uphold law,  AT ANY COST,  and here at any cost includes against his own interest too.

3.  Justice (LAW) has to be upheld, and not the judges own  "nuisance'ical"   "emotions or sentiments" or  direct or indirect interests.  Further there is no provision under the LAW, restricting the judge not to hear such matters.

4.  LAW has got nothing to do with  "Public Faith".   The legislature-parliament may be empowered to consider  "public faith" or public emotions or sentiments,  BUT the LAW cannot be put before such nuisance emotions.

5.  Public faith used to be in   "SATI",  "untouchables",  child marriages, and other nuisances.  However they cannot be incorporated in LAW, just because of public faith.  A judge would say that he is married, hence he will not touch upon the subject of Divorce or Seperation etc...  just because he is an interested party in the institution of marriage.

If a judge fails in his own confidence and feels "sentimental and emotional" about upholding the LAW,  I think the judge should drop his post so that some other  "righteous" person can take over, with non-emotional conviction.

Keep Smiling .... Hemant Agarwal