GIRISH BABU Vs. HIGH COURT OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a public interest litigation filed by a law student for a direction to the High Court to reject the request of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram to transfer C.C. 6 of 2003 pending before him to another court. We have heard counsel appearing for the petitioner and have gone through the petition and the News paper report annexed thereto.

(2.) The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that false, motivated and baseless allegations were made against the Vigilance Judge which prompted him to recuse himself from hearing the matter by requesting the High Court to transfer the case to another court. The contention raised is that those who made allegations against the Judge are not parties to the litigation and so much so, the allegations are motivated, which the Judge should have ignored. After hearing the counsel for the petitioner and after going through the Writ Petition and the documents and the News paper cuttings filed along with the Writ Petition, we are of the view that the Writ Petition is not maintainable for the following reasons:

(3.) Admittedly, the Special Judge, of his own, recused himself from hearing C.C. 6 of 2003. It is only after taking such a decision that the Judge is stated to have requested the High Court to transfer the case from him to another court. The question whether a judicial officer should decide a particular case is purely a subjective matter. In fact, in order to recuse from hearing a matter, the judicial officer is not bound to record the reasons and we do not think the High Court or any party can ask the judicial officer the reasons for recusal unless motives are doubted. It is a well settled principle that justice should not only be done, but should also be seem to be done which means that the judge who heard the matter should be free from any kind of involvement in the matter he decides. It is up to the judge to consider whether there is any likelihood of public or any party alleging bias on him and if so, to recuse himself from the case irrespective of whether the allegations which prejudice a judge or which lead the judge from recusing himself from the matter are right or not. Response to allegations is purely subjective because mental strength of the judicial officers and their approach and attitude are not the same or uniform. However, when a judge, for any reason, thinks that his deciding a case may lead to any kind of controversy or adverse opinion about him and it is not worthwhile to risk his reputation, in our view, the judge should recuse from hearing such matters. So much so, in our view, the recusal to hear a case by the judge concerned cannot be subject matter of scrutiny by a court on the judicial side and even the High Court on the administrative side because while recusing the case, the judge only tries to protect his dignity, integrity and image as a judicial officer which he is absolutely free to preserve.