Guwahati: Kamal Nayan Choudhury, President of the Gauhati High Court Bar Association (GHCBA), on Wednesday, sought the recusal of Justice N Unni Krishnan Nair from hearing the contempt of court petitions filed by Advocate General (AG) Devajit Saikia against certain lawyers.
Choudhury argued that Justice Nair had liked an online post related to the case, raising concerns about impartiality.
Ready for a challenge? Click here to take our quiz and show off your knowledge!
Saikia filed the petition against Choudhury, Advocate Pallavi Talukdar, and Senior Advocate Anil Kumar Bhattacharya over alleged derogatory comments made in media interviews regarding Justice Suman Shyam and the proposal to relocate the High Court building.
During a preliminary hearing on April 8, the Bench of Chief Justice Vijay Bishnoi and Justice Nair reserved its order in the contempt case.
On April 9, Choudhury raised the issue that Justice Nair had liked a post reportedly on the “Prag News channel,” which suggested that criminal action, initiated against some lawyers of the GHCBA.
Ready for a challenge? Click here to take our quiz and show off your knowledge!
Choudhury pointed out that the post, when translated, stated, ” authorities registered criminal cases against a section of the lawyers of the Association,” and Justice Nair had liked it.
In response, Chief Justice Bishnoi asked, “So?” Choudhury responded, emphasizing that as a judge involved in the case, Justice Nair’s action of liking the post raised concerns about bias, requesting his recusal.
Chief Justice Bishnoi acknowledged the concern and indicated that they would address the recusal request before proceeding with other matters.
The dispute stems from a protest organized by the GHCBA last month against the proposed relocation of the High Court.
On April 3, the High Court issued a press release condemning verbal attacks on Justice Shyam, distancing itself from the comments made by GHCBA members. However, the Court also expressed concern about the lack of action taken against those responsible.
In his submissions, AG Saikia argued that the comments made by Talukdar and Bhattacharya were part of an institutional attack against the judiciary, not a personal attack on Justice Shyam.
Choudhury, on the other hand, claimed that the contempt petitions were filed due to personal animosity, asserting that he could not be held accountable for the statements made by other lawyers.