0

Lawyer cannot insist on transfer of case to another bench or recusal of a judge: Rajasthan High Court

The High Court of Rajasthan, through learned judge, Justice Vijay Bishnoi in the case of Master Arjun Choudhary v Chairman (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2839/2022) observed that a lawyer cannot insist on transfer of case to another bench or recusal of a judge.

BRIEF FACTS: When the Court assembled, the counsel for the petitioner,  mentioned the matter and submitted that since the Court was not in a position to hear the matter, the same may be transferred to another Bench. The Court tried to convince the counsel for the petitioner that the matter would be taken up at its own turn. However, she refused to hear and continued with her arguments and more than twice, she submitted that the Court should not hear the matter and transfer the same to another Bench. The court issued an order with respect to the incidents that happened. The court in the order remarked that the counsel for the petitioner had also stated  on an earlier occasion, that this Court had made oral comments, which the counsel felt were against the merits of the case. She insisted that this Court should not hear the matter and transfer it to another Bench. Further, even during the course of dictation of the order, counsel for the petitioner kept continuously interrupting and insisting the Court not to hear the matter and to pass any order in this matter. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that she was making these submissions in the interest of her client. 

FINDINGS OF THE COURT: The court made the following observation in the order: “This Court is of the opinion that no counsel can insist the Court not to hear the matter on the ground that this Court is not able to take up the matter despite diligent of the fact that more than 100 cases are listed today and several advocates got their matters marked as urgent. Even if during the course of hearing, the Court has commented on the merits of the case, which as per the counsel for the petitioner is not in favour of the petitioner, then also no counsel can insist to recuse the Court from hearing the matter”. The Court opined that the conduct of the counsel for the petitioner was highly objectionable and contemptuous. However, without making any further comment regarding conduct of the counsel for the petitioner, the court deemed it appropriate to place the matter before the Hon’ble Chief Justice for suitable orders.

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY – AMRUTHA K

Click here to read Judgement

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Open chat