Justice Eludes Whistleblower: Unprecedented Judicial Recusals in Chaturvedi's Cases
Justice Alok Verma of Uttarakhand High Court has stepped back from a contempt petition by IFS officer Sanjiv Chaturvedi, marking the 16th recusal in his cases. This phenomenon raises questions about judicial impartiality and challenges whistleblowers face in accessing justice as judges consistently recuse themselves without explanation.
- Country:
- India
In a significant development, Justice Alok Verma of the Uttarakhand High Court has recused himself from a contempt petition filed by Indian Forest Service officer Sanjiv Chaturvedi against members of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) and its registry. This marks the 16th instance of a judicial recusal in cases involving Chaturvedi, raising concerns about potential bias and access to justice for whistleblowers in the Indian judicial system.
Over the years, two Supreme Court judges, four High Court judges, two lower court judges, and eight CAT judges have stepped aside from hearing Chaturvedi's cases. Most recusal orders fail to provide specific reasons, igniting speculation about underlying biases or pressures. This situation underscores the obstacles whistleblowers face in their pursuit of justice, as many jurists appear hesitant to adjudicate such cases.
The latest order from Justice Verma on October 8 instructs that the case be listed before another Bench, yet does not specify a reason for his recusal. Similarly, on September 26, Justice Ravindra Maithani of the Uttarakhand High Court also withdrew from a contempt case, following a pattern of unexplained recusals in Chaturvedi's legal battles.
This pattern has been substantiated with numerous judges, including a slew from CAT, stepping away from Chaturvedi's diverse cases over the years, ranging from issues about anti-corruption investigations to defamation suits. Even the Supreme Court has witnessed recusals, as seen in 2013 when Justice Ranjan Gogoi opted out of a case involving calls for a CBI probe into political corruption highlighted by Chaturvedi.
The recurring theme of judicial hesitancy appears to pivot on complexities surrounding whistleblower cases, drawing attention to the ethical and procedural challenges within the judiciary—particularly in instances demanding examination of high-profile allegations and administrative discrepancies.
(With inputs from agencies.)
Google News