Judge Need Not Recuse From Hearing RBI Employee's Plea Merely Because He Appeared For RBI As Lawyer: Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court has rejected a litigant's demand that a Judge recuse from hearing a matter merely because, while at the Bar, he had appeared as counsel for the Reserve Bank of India (RBI). The Court observed that accepting such a contention as a general principle would make it impossible for any Judge who had represented the Government or public bodies during legal practice to hear...
The Bombay High Court has rejected a litigant's demand that a Judge recuse from hearing a matter merely because, while at the Bar, he had appeared as counsel for the Reserve Bank of India (RBI). The Court observed that accepting such a contention as a general principle would make it impossible for any Judge who had represented the Government or public bodies during legal practice to hear matters involving such entities after elevation to the Bench, a proposition contrary to settled principles of law.
A Division Bench of Justice G.S. Kulkarni and Justice Aarti Sathe was hearing a writ petition filed by a former RBI employee challenging the order terminating his services and the consequential eviction from service accommodation. At the outset, the RBI objected to the maintainability of the petition on the ground that the petitioner had suppressed material facts by failing to disclose that an earlier writ petition concerning his occupation of the service quarters had been dismissed by the High Court and that the Supreme Court had also dismissed his Special Leave Petition.
The Court found substance in the objection, observing that a litigant invoking the writ jurisdiction must make full disclosure of all material facts. It reiterated that suppression of material facts disentitles a litigant from obtaining discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The Bench further noted that the RBI Staff Regulations, 1948 provided the petitioner with an efficacious appellate remedy against the order terminating his services. Since the dispute involved disputed questions of fact that could more appropriately be examined by the Appellate Authority, the Court declined to entertain the writ petition while leaving it open to the petitioner to avail the statutory remedy within four weeks.
While these issues were being discussed, the petitioner allegedly created a disturbance in Court and demanded that Justice G.S. Kulkarni recuse from hearing the matter because he had earlier appeared as counsel for the RBI.
Rejecting the request, the Bench held that such a contention was wholly unacceptable and observed that, if accepted as a norm, it would become impossible for any Judge who had represented the Government or public bodies while practising as an advocate to hear matters involving those entities after elevation to the Bench. The Court held that the recusal demand was contrary to settled principles of law.
“Such contention by no standard is acceptable, and if accepted to be any norm, it would be impossible for any judge who has appeared for the Government or public bodies when at the Bar to take up any matter involving the Government or public bodies,” the Court observed.
Hence, the Court declined to entertain the writ petition.
Case Title: Paartha Sharathi v. Competent Authority, Reserve Bank of India & Ors. [Writ Petition No. 6359 of 2026]