LUCKNOW: In a strongly worded observation, the Allahabad High Court described alleged attempts by litigating parties to secure access to and approach a judge in pending bail matters as a "black day in the history of the Court", saying such conduct compromised judicial independence.
Justice Krishan Pahal, while hearing the bail application of Bhola Prasad, an accused in a codeine cough syrup smuggling case, recused himself from hearing more than 75 connected bail applications. He directed that the matters be placed before the Chief Justice for assignment to another Bench.
At the outset, the Bench recorded its "profound anguish" and "an abiding sense of institutional responsibility", while terming the episode "a black day in the history of this Court."
The Court observed that public confidence in the judiciary rested on the belief that justice was administered impartially, fearlessly and without any extraneous influence.
"Any attempt, howsoever, subtle or clandestine, to interfere with or influence the judicial decision-making process constitutes a direct assault upon the majesty of the Rule of Law", the Bench said.
Noting that arguments in all the connected bail matters had concluded and orders had been reserved, the Bench recorded that litigating parties had made efforts to secure access to and approach the judge.
According to the Court, allowing such conduct to go unnoticed would strike at the heart of judicial independence and erode public confidence in the purity of the adjudicatory process.
The Court further observed that if an order were ultimately passed in favour of a party, it could give rise to an “unwarranted but damaging inference” that the outcome was the result of extraneous influence rather than an impartial judicial determination.
It said the institution's reputation, painstakingly built over generations, could not be exposed to such avoidable suspicion.
Reiterating that justice must not only be done but must also “manifestly and unquestionably appear to have been done”, the Court said any attempt by a litigant or counsel to establish an extra-judicial channel of communication with a judge in relation to a pending matter was wholly incompatible with the ethics of the legal profession and the constitutional values underpinning an independent judiciary.
It described such conduct as “an affront to judicial propriety” and “utterly intolerable in the precincts of a High Court”.
Holding that it would be wholly inappropriate to proceed further with the matters, the Bench recused itself "to preserve the dignity of the institution, protect the purity of the judicial process, and eliminate even the faintest apprehension regarding the impartiality of the adjudication."
The Court directed that all the matters be placed before the Chief Justice for assignment to an appropriate Bench.
Before parting with the matter, the Court stressed that judicial independence was not merely a privilege of judges but a constitutional guarantee owed to every citizen.
It added that any practice calculated to undermine that independence, or even create an impression that judicial orders may be influenced through private approaches, was “a menace to the administration of justice" and deserves "the strongest institutional condemnation".
