The Supreme Court has underscored that judicial impartiality extends beyond actual bias and includes avoiding situations that could create a reasonable perception of conflict. The Court observed that a judge should refrain from hearing matters concerning property in which the judge had earlier represented one of the parties as an advocate, even if no legal bar technically exists. Such recusal, the Court said, is essential to preserve public confidence in the judiciary.
The ruling came while the Court was examining a challenge arising from a property dispute. During the proceedings, it emerged that the judge who had heard the matter at the High Court had previously acted as counsel for one of the parties in relation to the same property before being elevated to the Bench.
Judicial Propriety Requires Judges to Avoid Cases Involving Former Clients’ Property: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court held that, in such circumstances, the principle of judicial propriety requires the judge to voluntarily recuse from the case. The Bench stressed that justice must not only be delivered fairly but must also be seen to be delivered fairly. Even where there is no allegation of actual prejudice, any reasonable apprehension regarding impartiality can undermine public trust in the judicial system.
Also Read: BCI Directs State Bar Councils to Publicise SC Sharing Ban
According to the Court, the relationship between an advocate and a client is fiduciary in nature. A judge who had earlier represented a litigant concerning the same property may unintentionally create an impression that prior professional involvement could influence the judicial process. Therefore, stepping aside from such matters is the proper course to protect the credibility and integrity of the institution.
The Bench clarified that the issue was not about questioning the personal integrity of the judge concerned. Instead, the focus was on maintaining the highest standards of judicial ethics and ensuring that litigants have complete confidence in the fairness of court proceedings.
Emphasising that judicial ethics demand a higher standard of conduct than what is merely required by law, the Supreme Court reiterated that judges must avoid every circumstance that could cast doubt on their independence or neutrality. The Court observed that preserving the dignity and credibility of the judiciary sometimes requires judges to decline hearing cases where their past professional associations could give rise to a perception of bias.