The Supreme Court of India has ruled that a High Court judge ought not to hear or pass orders in a matter involving a former client — particularly when the dispute concerns the very same subject matter in which the judge had earlier appeared as counsel. The apex court stressed that 'justice must not only be done but must also be seen to be done.'

The observations were made by a bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and Sanjeev Sachdeva while disposing of special leave petitions (SLPs) filed by Prateek Resorts and Builders Private Limited, which had challenged a series of interim orders passed by a judge of the Uttarakhand High Court in criminal writ proceedings relating to a land dispute.

What the Court Found

The Supreme Court found that the Uttarakhand High Court judge in question had previously appeared as counsel for Prateek Resorts and Builders Private Limited in a 2013 writ petition concerning the very same parcel of land that subsequently became the subject of the criminal writ petition heard before him.

In these circumstances, the apex court held that 'in the interest of judicial propriety', the judge ought not to have entertained the matter or passed any orders in it. 'Passing orders either in favour of or against a former client, a private entity, does not further that cause,' the Justice Sanjay Kumar-led bench observed.

Scope of Writ Petitions Improperly Expanded

The court also took strong exception to the manner in which the scope of the two writ petitions had been enlarged through interim orders. The apex court noted that the two petitions had been filed on 'altogether different issues' and that their scope had subsequently been widened by the judge to address matters unconnected with the original issues before the High Court.

'Even if such an exercise was taken up with the best of intentions, it was not proper for the learned Judge to do so in writ petitions which had nothing to do with the issues sought to be addressed,' the bench said.

The court added that if the judge believed the matter warranted consideration in public interest, the proper course would have been to place it before the High Court's Public Interest Litigation (PIL) Committee or refer it to the Chief Justice for appropriate action in accordance with established procedure.

Interim Orders Left Undisturbed for Now

Despite its sharp observations on judicial propriety, the Supreme Court declined to interfere with the existing interim orders at this stage. It noted that certain orders were presently in operation and that undertakings had been given regarding not cutting down trees on the disputed land.

'It is for the appropriate Bench of the High Court, as and when it takes up the matter, to go into all aspects on facts and in law, including the validity of the orders impugned presently. All issues are left open to be addressed before the said Bench,' the Supreme Court stated.

Directions to Uttarakhand High Court Chief Justice

The apex court directed that its order be communicated to the Chief Justice of the Uttarakhand High Court for taking suitable steps regarding the listing of the two criminal writ petitions before an appropriate bench. The court also asked the Chief Justice to consider initiating a public interest litigation, if warranted by the circumstances.

This ruling reinforces a foundational principle of judicial ethics — that the appearance of impartiality is as vital as impartiality itself — and places renewed scrutiny on recusal practices in India's higher judiciary.