The Supreme Court of India has expressed disapproval of a sitting judge from the Uttarakhand High Court for adjudicating on a case involving a company that he had previously represented as legal counsel. This development arose from the case Prateek Resorts and Builders Pvt Ltd v. Puneet Agrawal & Ors. The Bench, consisting of Justices Sanjay Kumar and Sanjeev Sachdeva, issued an order on July 27, emphasizing the importance of judicial propriety. The order stated that the judge should have refrained from engaging in the case to maintain public trust in the judiciary.
The Supreme Court stressed the principle that justice must be transparent, underscoring that actions involving former clients, whether positive or negative, could undermine this perception. “Justice must not only be done but must also be seen to be done,” the Bench remarked.
The controversy originated from a series of interim orders passed by the Uttarakhand High Court in criminal writ petitions concerning land associated with Prateek Resorts and Builders Private Limited. It was highlighted in the Supreme Court that the High Court judge had previously acted as counsel for the company regarding the same parcel of land. Notably, the company had filed an application in the High Court to be included in the ongoing proceedings, which remained pending.
Additionally, the Supreme Court noted that the scope of the writ petitions had been extended through these interim orders to address issues not initially part of the original proceedings. Although the judge may have acted with good intentions, the Supreme Court indicated that such actions were inappropriate for writ petitions filed on different grounds.
The Bench suggested that if the judge believed the matter required public interest consideration, he should have referred it to the High Court’s Public Interest Litigation Committee or brought it to the Chief Justice’s attention for suitable action.
More Read
Despite these observations, the Supreme Court chose not to intervene with the interim orders at this juncture, acknowledging that they were already in effect and that assurances had been made against tree cutting. The Court directed that the matter be reassigned to a suitable bench of the High Court for a comprehensive review of all issues, including the legitimacy of the interim orders.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court instructed that a copy of its order be forwarded to the Chief Justice of the Uttarakhand High Court. This measure is intended to facilitate appropriate handling of the future listings of these cases and to decide on initiating public interest litigation, if necessary.
