Bombay HC Judge Refuses To Recuse From Cases Over 'Scurrilous' Bribery Claims Against 2 Sitting Judges, Including Himself; Imposes ₹50K Cost

Dismissing an interim application seeking his recusal from the matters, Justice Jadhav also imposed a cost of Rs. 50,000/- on the petitioner for attempting to 'browbeat' the Court and indulge in 'forum shopping'.

“The Judge, who is hearing the case, can decide to avoid the case if necessary. But a litigant cannot dictate to the Court to avoid his case by a Judge who is allotted the jurisdiction by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice as per the roster. If such a practice is started, the litigants will pick and choose the Judge who has to hear their case,” Justice Jadhav remarked as he dismissed the IA filed by the petitioner.

Case in brief

Briefly put, the writ petitions that were earlier listed in March and May 2025 before Justice Sandeep V Marne came to be listed before Justice Jadhav following a change in roster in June 2025.

When the matters were taken up on July 7, counsel for the petitioners refused to argue and sought an adjournment, alleging that the cases had been listed pursuant to a petition moved by the respondents 'behind their backs'.

Subsequently, on July 17, Petitioner No. 2 submitted a complaint to the Chief Justice of India, the Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court, and the President of India, accusing Justice Sandeep V. Marne and Justice Milind N. Jadhav of bribery, corruption and bias.

Importantly, the petitioner claimed that he was aggrieved as in March and May 2025, the Writ Petitions were listed before Justice Marne out of turn, even though no praecipe was moved before the bench specifying the urgency to take up the matter.

On July 21, he informed Justice Jadhav's Bench about the said complaint and pressed for recusal. Finally, on July 30, the petitioner formally moved an Interim Application seeking a 'Not Before Me' order, so that the writ petitions would not be listed before Justice Jadhav.

It was argued that since Justice Jadhav was named in the complaint, it would not be appropriate for him to continue hearing the writ petitions.

On the other hand, the respondents maintained that the Petitioner was deliberately stalling the final hearing to continue enjoying the benefits of the interim orders passed earlier.

Court's observations

At the outset, the bench noted that the writ petitions were placed before Justice Jadhav as per the roster assigned by the Chief Justice and not at the instance of the Bench.

"By change of roster assigned by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice the Petitions were listed before this Court from June, 2025 onwards. This Court therefore fails to understand how such an allegation of bribery and corruption is alleged against this Court", it noted.

The Court stressed that the petitioners themselves were unwilling to argue, seeking repeated adjournments while pressing for recusal. Hence, the question of denial of hearing did not arise.

Rejecting the argument that pendency of a complaint before higher authorities warranted recusal, the Court said:

"Such allegations are nothing but an attempt to browbeat the Court into submission. A person threatening the Court, stating that he has filed a complaint against the Judge and therefore the case should be avoided by that Judge, cannot be accepted at all".

The Bench described the complaint and recusal plea as a “sheer abuse of the due process of law” and noted that the petitioners' sole objective was to ensure that the petitions were not decided on the merits.

"…to achieve this objective Petitioners have used the age old method of filing a complaint and criticizing the Judges, in this case two Judges of this Court, casting uncalled for and serious aspersions on Judges with the sole intention that the Judge so attacked will give up the matter and recuse himself", the bench noted.

Furthermore, the bench observed that by recusing from the matter, he would be initiating a wrong practice and laying down a wrong precedent. He said that recusal is a matter of judicial conscience and cannot be dictated by litigants

"A Judge may recuse on his own from a case entrusted to him by the Chief Justice and that would be a matter of his own choosing. But recusal at the asking of a litigating party, unless justified (emphasis supplied) must never to be acceded to", the order noted.

In this regard, the court also referred to the Supreme Court's ruling in the case of Indore Development Authority (Recusal Matter-5) Vs. Manohar Lal and Ors, wherein it was observed that Litigants cannot be allowed to tarnish the system of administration of Justice by vilification of Judges in such unsubstantiated manner.

The Court made it clear that merely filing a complaint against a Judge before higher authorities cannot automatically disqualify that Judge from hearing a matter.

"I am confident that I am upholding the oath I have taken, and I am discharging my duty in accordance with the Constitution of India. I am exercising my judicial powers in accordance with the law and the Constitution of India", the court remarked.

Thus, it opined that the IA and the complaint filed were nothing but a sheer abuse of the due process of law based on serious but completely unsubstantiated allegations against two Judges of the Court.

With this, the IA was dismissed with exemplary costs of Rs. 50K to be submitted to the High Court Legal Services Authority, Bombay High Court within a period of 2 weeks. The Court clarified that failure to deposit the cost would invite recovery through execution proceedings.