Supreme Court Bench Recuses From Hearing Contempt Case Where Advocate Was Sentenced To Imprisonment And Barred From Practice

It is pertinent to note that the appeal challenged the Delhi High Court’s judgment holding her guilty of criminal contempt, it had imposed a punishment of imprisonment for a period of one month and a fine of Rs.2,000 while also restraining her from practice for two years. The contempt proceedings were originally initiated by a Delhi High Court bench of Justice Ravindra Bhat and Justice Vibhu Bakru, where the Advocate referred to the latter as "corrupt" and further alleged that he sat on the particular bench of the court "out of turn".

Interestingly, the Apex Court while staying the order restraining Sapra to practice in the Delhi High Court, in its judgment dated August 18, 2019, refused to accede to her prayer seeking Justice A.M. Khanwilkar to recuse from the matter. It noted that around 28 Judges of the High Court, who had heard the writ petition filed by her, had to recuse by the time the writ petition was finally decided on March 2, 2015. Sapra had also strongly objected to Senior Advocate Vikas Singh being appointed as Amicus Curiae in the matter. She had also sought recall of an order dated October 27, 2017 appointing Senior Advocate Pinky Anand to assist the Court as Amicus Curiae.

Therefore, the bench led by Justice Sundresh observed, “We could not persuade her in making her submission on the adjourned date. We could gather that she is not satisfied with our persuasion. Thus, it appears to us that it would not be appropriate to hear the matter. The Registry is directed to place the matter before Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India to list it before a Bench to which both of us are not party. While passing this order we are conscious of the background facts including the earlier orders passed”.

AOR Kavita Jha appeared for the respondent.

For the background, before the Apex Court, Sapra had contended that she may not get justice from the bench as Justice Khanwilkar, as he was well acquainted with the Advocates who incidentally are members of the Supreme Court Bar Association against whom personal allegations have been made by her in the accompanying writ petition.

Therefore, a bench of Justice A.M. Khanwilkar and Justice Aajay Rastogi while citing the exposition of the Constitution Bench in Supreme Court Advocates­-On-­Record Association and Another Vs. Union of India, held, “Indubitably, it is always open for a Judge to recuse at his own volition from a case entrusted to him by the Chief Justice. But, that may be a matter of his own choosing. Recusal, at the asking of the litigating party, cannot be countenanced unless it deserves due consideration and is justified”.

“It must never be forgotten that an impartial Judge is the quintessence for a fair trial and one should not hesitate to recuse if there are just and reasonable grounds. At the same time, one cannot be oblivious of the duty of a Judge which is to discharge his responsibility with absolute earnestness, sincerity and being true to the oath of his/her office. After perusal of the assertions made in the stated I.A.s, we have no hesitation in observing that the same are devoid of merit and without any substance. To observe sobriety, however, we say no more”, the bench had further observed in the matter.

In the writ petition, the petitioner had sought protection alleging that she had been assaulted by some policemen outside the High Court of Delhi.

The Apex Court, while disposing of the IAs in the main writ petition, through its order dated November 26, 2019, directed the Registry to issue notice also to the Attorney General for India and if representation has already been filed, then the same be considered by the concerned authority of Delhi Police in right earnest so as to ensure the safety and security of the applicant.