Supreme Court Criticises High Court Judge For Dealing With Case Of Former Client

Observing that judges should not entertain proceedings either for or against their former clients, the Supreme Court recently disapproved the conduct of a single judge of the Uttarakhand High Court, who, while hearing a writ petition on an unrelated issue, expanded the scope of the proceedings to examine matters concerning land owned by his former client.

The Court noted that the Judge had earlier represented Prateek Resorts & Builders Private Limited, and the land involved in that previous case was the very same land which is the subject matter of enquiry before the said Judge in the present proceedings. The Bench also noted that the company had moved an impleadment application before the High Court, which was still pending consideration.

Disapproving the conduct of the Judge, the bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva observed : “…in the interest of judicial propriety, the learned Judge ought not to have entertained and passed orders in the matter. Trite to state, justice must not only be done but must also be seen to be done. Passing orders either in favour of or against a former client, a private entity, does not further that cause.”

The Supreme Court bench was considering a challenge to a series of interim orders passed by the Uttarakhand High Court, whereby issues relating to tree felling and environmental concerns, though not forming part of the original subject matter of the writ petitions, came to be examined in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction.

The bench emphasized that the Judge should have refrained from passing interim orders while enlarging the scope of proceedings to include land belonging to his former client, for which he had earlier appeared as counsel.

The Court noted that if at all the High Court Judge wanted to enlarge the scope of the Writ Proceedings involving the issues of tree felling and environmental concerns, then it would have been appropriate “by placing the matter before the Public Interest Litigation Committee constituted in the High Court or by referring the matter to the Hon'ble The Chief Justice of the High Court for necessary measures to be taken in accordance with due procedure.”

Despite these observations, the Supreme Court declined to interfere with the interim orders at this stage, noting that they were already in operation and that undertakings had been given regarding the non-felling of trees. The Court clarified that it would be for the appropriate Bench of the High Court to examine all factual and legal issues, including the validity of the impugned interim orders, after the matter is placed before it.

“This order shall be communicated to the Hon'ble The Chief Justice of the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital for taking suitable steps with regard to the listing of Criminal Writ Petition Nos. 762/2026 and 1431/2026 as well as initiation of a public interest litigation, if warranted.”, the Court ordered.

Cause Title: PRATEEK RESORTS AND BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS PUNEET AGRAWAL & ORS.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 737

Click here to download order

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Mukta Gupta, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rahul Jain, AOR Ms. Lalit Mohini Bhat, Adv. Ms. Hetu Arora Sethi, Adv. Mr. Siddarth Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Sanidhya Kumar, Adv. Ms. Kanak Bathwal, Adv. Ms. Nitya Gupta, Adv. Mr. Vittal Bala Subrahmanyam, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Ms. Vanshaja Shukla, Adv. Ms. Deepti Arya, Adv. Mr. Narayan Har Gupta, Adv. Ms. Samapika Biswal, AOR Mr. Anmol Sandhu, Adv. Ms. Swati Arya, Adv. Ms. Mehak Kumar, Adv. Mr. Vijay Kasana, AOR