Chhattisgarh HC Bench Recuses As Judge's Niece Appears As Counsel; Calls CJ's Recusal Norms Circular An 'Interference'

A division bench of the Chhattisgarh High Court last week took strong exception to a circular issued by the Registrar (Judicial) under the direction of the Chief Justice concerning the recusal norms. The bench termed it an "interference in the functioning of the Court".

The strong observation came as the Bench [Justice Sanjay S Agrawal and Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas] recused itself from hearing a matrimonial appeal after the niece of one of the presiding judges [Justice Agrawal] appeared as a counsel in the matter, though as a junior.

For context, the provision prescribed under Rule 6, Part VI, Chapter-II "Standards of Professional Conduct and Etiquette (Rules under Section 49 (1) (c) of the Advocate Act read with the Proviso thereto)", prohibits an advocate from pleading or practising before a court if the judge is a close relative and it explicitly includes a niece.

Relying on this provision, the bench remarked that "in order to avoid any kind of unwanted controversy, it is, therefore, not desirable to conduct this matter consisting one of the member of this Bench".

Consequently, the bench directed that the matter be listed before an appropriate Bench, in which Justice Agrawal is not a member.

However, before parting with the matter, the bench took into account a recent circular (dated April 16, 2026) issued upon the direction of the Chief Justice, which effectively sought to prevent the practice of Bench/Court hunting.

The Circular essentially stated that an exception of a Bench Court shall not be treated as a general rule and shall be resorted to only in rare and bona fide circumstances.

Importantly, the circular further stated that even if an advocate related to a Judge accepts a brief or fails to return it, the pending case shall not be treated as a ground for an exception by the concerned Bench.

Instead, the circular instructed judges to examine the timing and nature of such engagements, stating thus:

"Only in rare and exceptional cases, and upon being satisfied that the situation is bonafide and not intended to avoid the concerned Bench/Court, may the Bench/Court consider making an Exception, for reasons to be recorded in writing".

Taking a very strong stand against the circular, the division bench remarked that deciding which case is to be made an exception and how the Court is to function is a prerogative of the concerned Bench and cannot be "directed and restricted as such".

"The said circular, thus, appears to be an interference of the Court functioning", the bench added.

The Court, however, directed that the matter be placed before the Chief Justice for appropriate orders for its listing.