New Delhi, July 30, 2026 (Yes Punjab News)
The Supreme Court has observed that High Court judges should not hear matters involving former clients, especially when the dispute relates to the same subject matter in which they had earlier represented the party as a lawyer.
A bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and Sanjeev Sachdeva made the observations while disposing of petitions filed by Prateek Resorts and Builders Private Limited challenging interim orders passed by a judge of the Uttarakhand High Court in criminal writ proceedings linked to a land dispute.
The Supreme Court noted that the High Court judge had earlier appeared as counsel for Prateek Resorts and Builders in a 2013 writ petition concerning the same piece of land that later became the subject of proceedings before the judge.
The apex court said that, in such circumstances, “in the interest of judicial propriety”, the judge should not have entertained the matter or passed orders in it.
“Justice must not only be done but must also be seen to be done. Passing orders either in favour of or against a former client, a private entity, does not further that cause,” the bench observed.
The Supreme Court also questioned the manner in which the scope of the writ petitions was expanded through interim orders, stating that the original petitions dealt with different issues and were later extended to cover unrelated matters.
The court said that even if the expansion was done with good intentions, it was not appropriate to address such issues through writ petitions that were unrelated to the original subject matter.
It observed that if the judge believed the issue required public interest consideration, the matter should have been placed before the High Court’s Public Interest Litigation (PIL) Committee or referred to the Chief Justice for further action under established procedures.
However, the Supreme Court did not interfere with the interim orders at this stage, noting that some directions were already in operation and undertakings had been given regarding protection of trees.
The court directed that its order be placed before the Chief Justice of the Uttarakhand High Court for appropriate steps regarding the listing of the criminal writ petitions before a suitable bench and consideration of a PIL, if required.
FOLLOW NOW
