The Madras High Court has said that neither a litigant nor a lawyer could force a judge to recuse from hearing a particular case either by filing affidavits to that effect or sending letters to the Chief Justice complaining about the questions posed by the judge during the course of hearing of the case and thereby attributing motives.
Justice S. Vaidyanathan made the observation while dismissing a writ petition filed by Annai Indira Gandhi Hut Dwellers Welfare Association in 2004. The association had challenged a Government Order issued on December 29, 2003 cancelling allotment of around 1.5 acres of land at Velachery to members of petitioner association in 1992.
Though the cancellation was made and the association members were ordered to vacate the property because the land was required for phase II of the Mass Rapid Transport System (MRTS) project, it was the claim of the association that the land occupied by its members was not at all required for the project and therefore the G.O. must be quashed.
However, the Collector, in a counter affidavit, stated that initially 97 families had encroached upon the land about two decades ago and thereafter made a request for allotment of one cent to each of them. Therefore, the 1992 GO was issued to assign the lands to them. However, the association had increased its membership to 312.
The then tahsildar too unauthorisedly issued patta to all 312 members. Now that the property was required for larger public good, the government had taken steps to vacate the “encroachers,” the Collector said. However, the judge, in his order, said that they should be termed as “land grabbers” and not just encroachers.
“The complaint given to the Hon’ble Chief Justice amounts to interference with the Judiciary. Any Judge can express views in the open court and ask questions by way of clarification,” Mr. Justice Vaidyanathan said and left it to the Chief Justice to decide whether writing such a letter would amount to contempt of court or not.
“No one can compel a judge to recuse from a case and I have to discharge my duties based on the oath taken by me, more particularly in the light of the term — without fear or favour,” the judge concluded.
