Judges speak only through their judgments. In the Supreme Court’s judgment in the Subrata Roy case, delivered on May 6, >Justice K.S. Khehar spoke for himself and Justice K.S. Radhakrishnan (since retired) and ruled that the Court would not be deterred from doing its duty by allegations of bias. It would not succumb to mind games played by litigants and their eminent counsel. The Court ruled that “not hearing the matter would constitute an act in breach of our oath of office, which mandates us to perform the duties of our office, to the best of our ability, without fear or favour, affection or ill will.” The thundering 207-page judgment repelled every argument against the bench hearing the writ petitions which challenged Mr. Roy’s detention in the ongoing contempt proceedings. It rejected the writ petitions as not maintainable and also ruled against Sahara’s claims of having complied with its earlier orders.
Questions to ask It is understood that immediately thereafter, on the same day, Justice Khehar wrote to the Chief Justice of India recusing himself from hearing all Supreme Court cases involving the Sahara group. With Justice Radhakrishnan having retired, this recusal effectively means that an entirely new bench will now be charged with all issues arising out of enforcement of the Supreme Court’s 2010 judgment requiring >Sahara Group to pay over 20,000 crore to Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) . The question to ask is: why now and why not earlier? Secondly, Justice Radhakrishnan went on record to say that in this matter, “[the] pressure, tension and strain which I have undergone is unimaginable.” Is Justice Khehar’s recusal because of the pressure or is it caused by any other factors? These and other questions may legitimately be asked by the public but cannot be answered by the judiciary, which is bound by its own code of silence.
One can only look at past practice and precedent to attempt an answer to the questions and decide whether this is an appropriate decision at this point of time. The fundamental rule is that no man should be a judge in his own cause. In the United States, a federal judge is required to recuse by a rule of the Judicial Code that he “shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” The rule is that a judge’s expression of an opinion about the merits of a case, or his familiarity with the facts or the parties, must have originated in a source outside the case itself. The “extrajudicial source rule” was recognised as a general presumption, although not an invariable one, in the 1994 U.S. Supreme Court decision in
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
(Sanjay Hegde is a Supreme Court lawyer.)