SC steps in after 4 Punjab and Haryana High Court judges recuse from hearing ex-judicial officer’s plea

The Supreme Court on Wednesday asked the Acting Chief Justice of Punjab and Haryana High Court to constitute a two-judge bench to hear the plea of a former judicial officer challenging his termination from service in 2022 after he pointed out that four benches of the High Court had recused themselves from hearing it.

Amrish Kumar Jain’s services were first terminated in 2009 on the recommendations of the HC on its administrative side, but was reinstated in service in 2019. He was again terminated in 2022 on the recommendations of the HC acting on its administrative side.

Rejecting Jain’s request to transfer the matter to the Delhi High Court, a bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice V Mohana asked the Acting Chief Justice “to constitute a division bench…to hear…” his petition.

The bench also said “the learned judges be advised not to recuse in the matter irrespective of the situations that may be created by anyone”. Directing “day-to-day” hearing, the court said that it “must be heard finally in the week commencing July 13, 2026”.

The SC also asked the Registrar General of the High Court to send a compliance report to it after the matter is heard and judgment is reserved.

Taking up the matter, the CJI asked Jain, who appeared along with his counsel Advocate Abhay Pratap Singh, to name the judges who recused themselves from hearing the matter.

“Who are the judges who have recused. First of all, I would like to know that. Because then I am going to make an inquiry that what kind of activities you are indulging,” the CJI said.

Story continues below this ad

Jain said “first Justice Lisa Gill, (and) then Chief Justice after keeping the judgment reserved for six months, then Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra. I myself addressed the arguments three times. Then I moved an application for early hearing and it was taken up by a Division Bench headed by Justice Deepak Sibal, who also recused”.

Jain added, “In 2024, I moved an application to release my pensionary benefits so that I could pay the tuition fees of my son who was in LLB final year at that time. Even that was not allowed.”

The CJI said, “I will direct the Chief Justice there to constitute a bench and the moment you try to play any mischief there then, very serious consequences (will follow). I will monitor the matter from here.”

Jain urged the bench to fix a time to conclude the hearing.

Story continues below this ad

While dictating the order, the CJI suggested that Jain should argue his case himself as there are some senior lawyers in the court “who are indulging in this kind of things”, implying that some lawyers may be trying to influence proceedings by seeking recusal of judges.

“I know there are 4-5 senior advocates who are indulging in this kind of things. I am closely watching the thing. You personally argue and don’t engage any counsel there … These 3-4 so-called senior advocates are creating havoc,” the CJI said.

Jain said that he himself had argued before two of the benches and agreed to argue his case himself when it is heard again by the HC.

Jain, who joined Punjab Civil Services (Judicial Branch) in November 2005 and was serving as Civil Judge (Junior Division), was first terminated from service in 2009 on the recommendations made by the High Court on its administrative side. He challenged this before the HC saying that the then District and Sessions Judge at Jalandhar, in May 2007, was biased towards him, due to which adverse remarks were noted in his Annual Confidential Report (ACR) for the year 2007-08.

Story continues below this ad

On October 3, 2018, the HC ordered his reinstatement in service with all consequential benefits such as seniority, continuity of service, increments, right to promotions etc. but without any arrears of salary.

“The then learned District and Sessions Judge was supposed to guide him. These kind of defects can be found in the working of any Court … It appears that then learned District and Sessions Judge was not happy with the petitioner. That is why, he chose to make such routine remarks and submitted the detailed report in several annexures to the Administrative Judge to make him biased,” the HC had said then.

The SC upheld the HC decision on January 14, 2019.

Though he was reinstated in March 2019, the HC on its administrative side in March 2022 once again recommended his termination from service and he was removed on April 18, 2022, thereby “depriving him not only of employment, but also of pensionary and retiral benefits”.