Justice Bharati Dangre Of Bombay HC Recuses From Case Amid Allegations Of Impartiality, Orders CBI To Probe The Letter
A Bench of Justice Bharati Dangre of the Bombay High Court recused herself from hearing a case registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and provided detailed reasons for her decision in a 5-page order. The case involved a petition filed by Suresh Khemani against the CBI, where he was accused of cheating and forgery of excise duty after the sessions court dismissed his plea for discharge.
Justice Dangre had presided over the case on two occasions, during which she extended the interim relief granted by a previous bench. However, on September 10, she received a letter at her residence from one Hiten Thakkar, a resident of Vile Parle, regarding Khemani's case.
The letter detailed the previous judge's recusal and the alleged illegal continuation of interim relief. It suggested that there may have been attempts to influence the case in favor of the applicants through monetary means and requested the dismissal of the case, urging the accused to stand trial.
Justice Dangre faced a choice of either recusing herself from the case or proceeding despite the biased accusations. She added, “Upon receipt of the letter, the option open to me is, either I recuse myself from the matter in hand, or continue with same, ignoring the accusations of bias..”
She emphasized the importance of judicial impartiality, noting that judges must decide cases free from personal bias or prejudice. She added, “Judicial impartiality is the most signifcant facet of justice and there can be no doubt, that a Judge is expected to decide the legal disputes placed before him, free of any personal bias or prejudice.”
She highlighted that even if a judge is impartial, the perception of bias from one party necessitates recusal. The standard for recusal is a "real and not remote possibility" rather than mere probability. She further added, “Recusal defnitely cannot be used as a tool to manoeuvre justice, as a means of Bench hunting or Forum shopping, or as an instrument to evade judicial work”
Despite having the option to continue with the case, she decided to recuse herself to maintain an independent decision-making process and avoid potential accusations of bias. She emphasized her commitment to dispensing fair and impartial justice and expressed concern about attempts to manipulate the judicial system.
Justice Dangre noted that casting aspersions on judges to influence bench selection or intimidate the system was not uncommon. She called for accountability for such actions, stating that the system must remain loyal to justice.
The High Court directed the Registrar (Judicial) to retain the letter and provide a copy to CBI Advocate Kuldeep Patil. The CBI was instructed to investigate the "judicial impropriety" and submit a report by September 29. Advocate Aabad Ponda appeared for the Applicant, and requested action under the Contempt of Courts Act, however, the Court deferred this action till the report of C.B.I. was placed and the existence of the sender was affirmed.
The interim protection was continued, and the case would be placed before another bench. The Court added, “For the aforesaid reason, I recuse myself from hearing the Revision Application No.59 of 2021, with liberty to the Applicants to request the matter to be placed before another Alternate Bench.”
Cause Title: Suresh Kevalram Khemani & Ors. v. Central Bureau of Investigation, Economic Offences Unit-I (Eo-1) & Ors.
Click here to read/download Order