Bombay High Court: In an interim application filed by the petitioner for recusal of sitting judges, on the grounds of corruption, from hearing the three writ petitions filed by him, the Single Judge Bench of Milind N. Jadhav, J., dismissed the said application with exemplary cost of Rs. 50,000 and held that such complaint is sheer abuse of process of law as the allegations were completely unsubstantiated allegations against two Judges of the Court. The Court opined that recusal cannot be forced by the litigant, and the litigants cannot be allowed “forum shopping” until they get a bench to their liking.
Background
The petitioner had filed three writ petitions in the year 2016, arising out of proceedings initiated under Sections 70B, 43 and 32G of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948.
The said petitions were adjourned to 20-6-2025 for final hearing. On 20-6-2025, the petitions did not reach hearing, therefore Advocate for respondents moved an early listing application, stating that one contesting respondent was 87 years old. Thus, the petitions were listed on 7-7-2025. On the said date, Advocate for Petitioners refused to argue and persuaded the Court to adjourn the matters to another date on the ground that Respondents’ Advocate moved the praecipe dated 3-7-2025 behind its back and the Court listed the matters on 7-7-2025 without their knowledge and consent. Petitions were further adjourned to 21-7-2025 to enable the Advocate for Petitioners to get ready in the matters and argue on the adjourned date.
However, the Petitioner appeared in-person along with his father and informed the Court their Advocate had refused to appear on their behalf and informed the Court that on 17-7-2025, petitioner had filed a complaint before the Chief Justice of the Court and Chief Justice of India to initiate criminal prosecution against this Court and the previous Court (Coram: Justice Sandeep V. Marne) on various grounds including bribery and corruption. Hence the petitioner persuaded the Court to not hear the matters and adjourn them. The matters reached hearing on 4-8-2025 and the Advocate for petitioner appeared on video conferencing but due to certain connectivity issues, Court requested him to physically argue the matters on 6-8-2025. On 6-8-2025, the Advocate for petitioners, placed a copy of Interim Application before the Court, which sought recusal of the present Court and called upon the Court to pass the order “Not Before Me” and further sought the direction to place the matters before another Court.
Analysis, Law and Decision
The Court pointed out that the writ petitions were listed as per the roster assigned by the Chief Justice since June 2025 onwards and therefore, the listing of petitions before the Court was not on account of the Court directing listing of the said matters out of turn.
The Court noted that the recusal was sought on five grounds. The first ground being violation of principles on natural justice, according to the petitioners, listing and hearing without notice undermines procedural fairness essential for a just adjudication. The Court observed that the petitioners were time and again, on different occasions were given the opportunity of hearing, in fact, petitioners’ Advocate did not wish to argue the matters as they were enjoying interim order against the respondents. Hence, this ground was rejected by the Court.
The second ground for seeking recusal was the pendency of the complaint filed against the Court. The Court observed the premise of the said complaint was that the criminal action should be initiated against both Courts for bribery and corruption. The Court observed that no details of the allegations are stated in the complaint and the allegations made were unsubstantiated, only browbeat the Court into submission and pass the order “Not Before Me”.
Examining the complaint, the Court noted that three threat phone calls on 8-2-2025, 16-4-2025 and 19-4-2025 from foreign numbers / shores regarding the subject case, were received by the petitioner from Karachi, Pakistan. The complaint was filed on 17-7-2025 while the present Court was not the roster from February, 2025 to May, 2025, when the alleged threat phone calls were received by Petitioners. Therefore, it was held that such blatantly false, and unsubstantiated complaint cannot be accepted.
The third ground was that, as the present Court had directed enquiry against the petitioner, so the petitions should not be heard by the Court. Reference in the complaint is made against two Courts for commission of bribery and corruption and to link it with Petitioners having received threat calls from Karachi, Pakistan in February and April, 2025. The Court pointed out that it never seized the hearing of the said petitions in February and April 2025 and due to the change of the roaster made by the Chief Justice the Petitions were listed before this Court from June, 2025 onwards. The Court therefore opined that there needs to be an element of fact prima facie seen on record to allege such bias and reasonable doubt which was clearly absent in the present case and thus, rejected the ground on being completely vague and insufficient.
The fourth ground according for the recusal was the breach of judicial discipline and binding precedent. On the said ground the Court observed that the petitions were not decided and Petitioners’ Advocate was never restrained from arguing the petitions, rather since he was unable to answer any questions and kept on repeating that petitioners were occupants of the subject land, at his request, petitions were adjourned by two weeks. Therefore, there was no element of breach of judicial discipline.
The fifth ground was the rejection of constitutional guarantee of Fair Trial / Hearing. The Court hereby, observed that the petitioners did not want the petitions to be heard by the Court under any circumstances and they only wanted to enjoy the interim order, and to achieve this objective, the petitioners filed the complaint, casting serious aspersions on Judges with the sole intention that the Judge so attacked may recuse himself from the matter.
Examining the application of the above grounds, the Court opined that merely on the apprehension that the Court may pass an adverse order and to achieve it, serious allegations made against the Judges, cannot be a reason to seek recusal. Further it was stated that making such an unsubstantiated allegation and insinuation against sitting Judges of the Court of bribery and corruption and linking it with the petitioners having received threat calls from Karachi, Pakistan was unjustified. The petitioners made every effort to delay and frustrate the course of justice, tried to do forum shopping and in doing so the petitioners criticized two Judges of the Court, casted serious aspersions of bribery and corruption with the intention that the said Judge would give up the matter and petitioners would continue enjoying the interim relief. The act of seeking recusal of the Court until litigants get a bench of their liking as in the present case, is called “forum shopping”. Therefore, recusal on such unsubstantiated grounds cannot be forced by the litigants. The Judge can decide if he wants to recuse and just the embarrassment of hearing the arguments for recusal should not be a compelling reason to recuse himself.
Accordingly, the Court, quashed the interim application, imposed exemplary costs on the petitioner of Rs. 50,000 and held that a litigant cannot dictate to the Court that the case should be avoided by a Judge. The Judge, who is hearing the case, can decide to avoid the case if necessary but he is bound to hear the cases allotted as per the roster notified by the Chief Justice. Additionally, it was held that complaint filed by the petitioner was sheer abuse of the process of law as it was based on serious but completely unsubstantiated allegations against two sitting Judges of the Court.
[Kalpesh Rajendra Jain v. Prabhavat Ramniklal Shah, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 2911, decided on: 13-8-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Advocate for the Petitioners- Vijay Kurle, Jayendra Manchekar, Advocates
Advocate for the Respondents- Pravin Samdani, Senior Advocate, Aditya Shiralkar, Mani Thevar, Advocates i/by M/s. Ganesh Co., Nimesh Bhatt, Advocates
