Judicial Procedure And Integrity Must Not Cater To Parties Selecting Preferred Judges For Their Cases – Calcutta High Court  Denies Recusal Request

In a recent decision by the High Court at Calcutta, Hon’ble Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta rejected a recusal request in the case concerning financial fraud allegations against IFB Finance Limited and its executives, underlining the principle that “judicial procedure and integrity must not cater to parties selecting preferred judges for their cases.”

The central legal issue pertained to a recusal application filed by the de-facto complainant, Mr. Sheshadri Goswami, who requested that the ongoing criminal revisional application (C.R.R. 1700 of 2022) be reassigned to a different judge. The petitioner claimed that the current bench, presided over by Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta, was unsuitable due to prior handling of related matters by another judge, which supposedly could influence the fairness of proceedings.

Goswami represents 17 victim investors who were allegedly defrauded by IFB Finance Limited, where their investments were not returned upon maturity. Following a police investigation, which resulted in a final report stating no prima facie material against the accused, a revisional application was filed against the acceptance of this report without a hearing for the complainant. Goswami argued that the matter should be heard by Hon’ble Justice Tirthankar Ghosh, who had previously adjudicated a related matter, thereby having familiarity with the case.

Judicial Independence: Justice Gupta emphasized that the assignment of cases by the Chief Justice is fundamental to ensuring judicial independence and preventing ‘forum shopping.’ He remarked, “The freedom of recusal is upon the judges… It should not be the choice of the litigants.”

Procedure and Impartiality: The court stressed that no substantial reasons were provided for the recusal other than the petitioner’s preference for another judge. Justice Gupta highlighted that such demands undermine the impartiality of the judiciary and the procedural sanctity of court proceedings.

References to Precedents: The decision extensively cited precedents including the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association vs. Union of India, which deals with similar issues of recusal and judicial bias, underscoring that a judge’s involvement in a case should be decided based on strict legal principles rather than the whims of the parties involved.

Decision: The recusal request was denied, with Justice Gupta stating that allowing litigants to choose their judge would lead to chaos and undermine the judiciary’s independence. The case is scheduled to proceed under the current bench with a hearing set for June 12, 2024.

Date of Decision: May 8, 2024

Soumendra Kumar Biswas Vs. The State of West Bengal & Anr.