Summary
During the Constitution Bench reference concerning land-acquisition law, parties sought Justice Arun Mishra’s recusal because he had participated in the earlier decision whose correctness was under consideration. He declined recusal. The other four judges agreed that prior judicial participation created no legal bar to his hearing the reference, which was to proceed on its merits. This order did not decide the referred land-acquisition questions.
Issues
- Whether a judge’s earlier legal opinion in a smaller Bench barred participation in a larger Bench reconsidering that opinion.
- Who determines a request for an individual judge’s recusal.
Held
- A prior judgment on a legal question does not by itself establish bias or a reasonable apprehension of bias disqualifying its author from a larger Bench reconsidering that question. The Court’s established practice includes such participation and instances of judges reconsidering their own views. (¶¶ Arun Mishra J: 14, Arun Mishra J: 21, Arun Mishra J: 27, Arun Mishra J: 28, Arun Mishra J: 30, Arun Mishra J: 43)
- Recusal is for the concerned judge to decide by considering the ability to adjudicate impartially. Mere legal predisposition, embarrassment from the request or a litigant’s preference for a particular Bench did not justify recusal in this case. Justice Mishra declined to recuse. (¶¶ Arun Mishra J: 34, Arun Mishra J: 42, Arun Mishra J: 43, Arun Mishra J: 44)
- The remaining four judges treated the recusal decision as Justice Mishra’s individual responsibility. They concurred that no legal principle or norm barred his participation, and directed that the constituted Bench proceed to determine the reference on merits. (¶¶ Order of other four judges: 1, Order of other four judges: 3, Order of other four judges: 4, Order of other four judges: 5, Order of other four judges: 6, Order of other four judges: 7)
Result
The request for Justice Arun Mishra’s recusal was rejected. The Constitution Bench was to hear and decide the reference on its merits; the substantive questions concerning section 24 of the 2013 land-acquisition legislation remained for determination.