Supreme Court of India
FAKRUDDIN versus THE PRINCIPAL, CONSOLIDATION TRAINING INSTITUTE AND ORS.
- Decided
- 10 May 1995
- Judges listed
- R.M. SAHAI, S.B. MAJMUDAR
- Disposal
- Disposed off
Citations
- Official
- [1995] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 389 · 1995 INSC 369
- Not shown
- 1 other citation string that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.
Cited by
We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.
Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.
The Court's text
Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.
Leave granted.
p. 390, margin D
Justice should not only be done but seem to be done. That is the basic structure on which confidence and faith in the institution rests. The Judiciary from the bottom in the hierarchy to the apex at the top commands respect because of its impartiality and objectivity. When a judge directs a case to be listed before another Court or Bench, as he knows one or the other party, it is not because any statutory law precludes him from hearing and deciding it but the propriety is practised and observed to exclude even the remotest possibility of any misgiving or doubt about the impartiality of the judge as even if he is just and fair and his decision is correct yet it may not be satisfying.
p. 390, margin E
What happened in this case is not only unfortunate but to compound it further the learned Judge even when apprised that he was the counsel for the respondent when he was at the bar did not observe that minimum norm which is expected to be observed even by quasi-judicial authorities.
p. 390, margin G
The dispute related to allotment of 'Chaks' in consolidation proceedings. Such a dispute does not raise any question of title. No exception, therefore, could be taken to the order passed by the High Court dismissing the writ petition in limine. But what has compelled us to interfere with the order of the High Court is that it was decided by a Bench of which one of the judges was a counsel for the respondents before his elevation. It may happen at times that a judge who had appeared for a party before his elevation may have forgotten about it. An order passed in ignorance of such factual error may not be taken notice of. But where it was specifically pointed out, as claimed in the Special Leave Petition, that the learned Judge was appraised of it and yet he chose to decide the case, is neither justified nor healthy for the institution. The result of the decision is immaterial. May be that another Bench hearing the case may have come to same conclusion. In fact this court might have refused to interfere with the order relating to allotment of 'Chakas' but it is not the correctness or otherwise of the order but the sense of justice, the public glare in which a judge is exposed every moment which is more important. A decision of a case one or other way may affect an individual but a decision by a judge who had appeared for one of the parties irrespective of the stakes, the result and the consequences is of much significance from a social point of view. Therefore, irrespective of the merits of the case we set aside the order passed by the High Court and remit the case back to the High Court for deciding it afresh/on merits in accordance with law. Any observation made in this order shall not be taken as deciding the rights of parties.
pp. 390–391, margin H
The appeal is disposed of accordingly. No Costs. G.N. Appeal disposed of.
p. 391, margin E