NEW DELHI, APRIL 12, 2025 – The Supreme Court of India has declined to interfere with an interim order passed by the Rajasthan High Court, where a Single Judge had refused to recuse himself from hearing a case despite the Petitioner alleging possible bias due to the Judge’s prior role as Senior Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department in a similar matter.

Contents

STUDENTS DENIED MBBS PROVISIONAL DEGREES RECUSAL PLEA BASED ON PRIOR REPRESENTATION SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS HC REASONING BUT REITERATES JUDICIAL SENSITIVITY CASE DETAILS LEGAL REPRESENTATION FOR THE PETITIONER FOR THE RESPONDENTS

A Bench of Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih upheld the Division Bench’s ruling, which had found the recusal request unwarranted, while simultaneously reiterating the importance of maintaining public confidence in judicial impartiality.

“We do not find any error in the approach taken either by the learned Single Judge or the Division Bench of the High Court. However, it is always said that justice should not only be done but also seen to be done,” the top court remarked.“If any of the parties has an apprehension, normally the Courts themselves should recuse from hearing of the said matters.”

-Story After Advertisement -

STUDENTS DENIED MBBS PROVISIONAL DEGREES

The case arose when students who had passed the MBBS course from the Appellant University (Singhania University) approached the Rajasthan High Court alleging that they were denied provisional degrees, thereby preventing them from registering with the Rajasthan Medical Council.

The students sought a declaration that the University’s actions were illegal and arbitrary, along with a writ of mandamus to enable registration and permit them to practice.

The University defended itself by asserting that it was an autonomous institution recognized under an Act of Legislature and Section 2(f) of the UGC Act, 1956, with authority to award medical degrees.

-Story After Advertisement -

RECUSAL PLEA BASED ON PRIOR REPRESENTATION

During the hearing, the Petitioner sought the recusal of the Single Judge, stating that the Judge had previously represented the Income Tax Department in cases involving charitable exemptions, which were allegedly relevant to the present matter.

However, the High Court rejected the recusal plea, stating:

“…we have no hesitation to hold that the plea for recusal at the fag end of hearing of the case was wholly unwarranted and uncalled for.”

-Story After Advertisement -

The Court concluded that the earlier case and the present case were not similar and that the Judge had rightly decided not to recuse.

SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS HC REASONING BUT REITERATES JUDICIAL SENSITIVITY

The Supreme Court, while upholding the High Court’s approach, emphasized judicial conduct and sensitivity towards perceptions of fairness:

“Justice should not only be done but also seen to be done… if any of the parties has an apprehension, normally the Courts themselves should recuse from hearing of the said matters.”

-Story After Advertisement -

The apex court did not find any procedural or legal error and vacated the interim order it had previously passed, directing that the matter be decided expeditiously as it had already faced delays.