New Delhi: The Supreme Court said on Friday that a litigant cannot be permitted to do bench hunting, merely assuming that an order from the bench may not be favorable.
A bench comprising Justices D.Y. Chandrachud and M.R. Shah said: “We see no valid and good ground for recusal by one of us. Merely because the order might not be in favor of the applicant earlier cannot be a ground for recusal. A litigant cannot be permitted to browbeat the court by seeking a bench of its choice.”
The bench rejected the plea of the petitioner that Justice Chandrachud should recuse himself from hearing the present miscellaneous application.
“We pointed out to the applicant petitioner in person that as earlier another application filed by her for the very same relief as in the present application was dismissed by this court, the second application for the same relief is not maintainable, the applicant petitioner in person submitted that one of us should recuse himself from hearing the present application,” said the top court.
The observation from the top court came while dismissing the application seeking a recall of its September last year order. In that order, the top court had said that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was not maintainable for assailing the order passed by a single judge of Karnataka High Court in 2018, in a matter arising out of proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act.
“Thereafter, once again, the applicant-petitioner in person preferred the present application for the very same relief, i.e., for recalling of the order dated September 3, 2020, which shall not be maintainable. Even otherwise, it is required to be noted that the order dated September 3, 2020, was pronounced after hearing the applicant. As observed hereinabove, earlier interim application for recalling of an order dated September 3, 2020, was dismissed and at that time also the applicant-petitioner in person was heard,” the bench said.
Citing this observation, the bench said the present application also deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. The bench directed the registry not to accept any further miscellaneous application on the subject connected to orders passed in either September or October last year.
