Fakruddin v. Principal, Consolidation Training Institute And Others, Supreme Court Of India, Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Factual and Procedural Background

The case arose from a dispute concerning the allotment of “chaks” in consolidation proceedings. The aggrieved party filed a writ petition before the High Court, which was dismissed in limine. On appeal, it was brought to the Supreme Court’s attention that one of the High Court judges on the deciding Bench had previously acted as counsel for the respondents before his elevation to the bench. Despite this being pointed out during the High Court proceedings, the judge did not recuse himself. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine the propriety of that decision-making process.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Supreme Court underscored the foundational principle that “justice should not only be done but seem to be done,” emphasizing that judicial confidence rests on the appearance of impartiality. The Court observed:

Judges often recuse themselves when they have previous professional relationships with a party, not because any statute mandates it, but to avoid “even the remotest possibility” of perceived bias.

Although the dispute over “chaks” did not itself implicate questions of title—and the writ petition’s summary dismissal might otherwise have been unobjectionable—the critical concern was the participation of a judge who had earlier represented the respondents.

While inadvertent oversight can occasionally occur, the appeal record indicated that the judge had been expressly apprised of his prior involvement yet chose to proceed. The Court characterized this as “neither justified nor healthy for the institution.”

The correctness of the underlying decision was deemed irrelevant; the integrity of the judicial process and public confidence in it took precedence.

Holding and Implications

Order Set Aside and Matter Remitted. The Supreme Court quashed the High Court’s order and remanded the case for fresh consideration by a differently constituted Bench. No costs were awarded.

Implications: The ruling reinforces the ethical obligation of judges to recuse themselves whenever past professional involvement with a party could cast doubt on their impartiality. Although no new legal precedent was cited, the decision serves as a cautionary guideline for judicial conduct, prioritizing public confidence over the substantive outcome of any single case.

Fakruddin v. Principal, Consolidation Training Institute And Others

Order

1. Leave granted.

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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 apprised 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. Maybe that another Bench hearing the case may have come to the same conclusion. In fact this Court might have refused to interfere with the order relating to allotment of ‘chaks’, 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.

5. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. No costs.

Civil Appeal No. 5791 of 1995, decided on May 10, 1995

Fakruddin v. Principal, Consolidation Training Institute And Others

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

Fakruddin v. Principal, Consolidation Training Institute And Others

Comments