First Week on the Bench: The MLA's Nephew, the Former Senior, and the Night Call
You are appointed Civil Judge (Junior Division), Karimganj, in June 2025. In your first week three things happen. On Monday an anticipatory bail application is moved on behalf of one Rupam Dey, whom you learn is the nephew of the local MLA; the Public Prosecutor appears and seeks time, and about thirty people, including the district president of the ruling party's youth wing, occupy the public benches of your courtroom. On Tuesday a title suit is listed in which the plaintiff's advocate is Sri Nabin Sarma, the senior under whom you practised for four years until you joined the service in 2024. On Wednesday at 8:45 p.m. the investigating officer of a murder case, in which the accused is in judicial custody and whose bail application is listed before you the next morning, telephones your residence to say he is coming over to 'brief' you privately with the case diary.
1. What standard governs recusal where the accused is a close relative of a sitting MLA, and how should you handle the presence of the crowd in the courtroom?
Read the worked answer
The test is objective: would a reasonable, fair-minded and informed person, aware of the facts, entertain a real apprehension of bias? The mere fact that the accused is the nephew of an MLA is not a disqualification. A judicial officer decides on the record, and recusing because a party is politically connected would permit forum shopping and would amount to a surrender of jurisdiction vested by law.
What does disqualify is personal interest in the outcome, a relationship with a party, prior involvement in the matter as an advocate, or conduct showing alignment with either side.
Practical handling: (i) the crowd is a law-and-order and court-management problem, not a judicial one; call the court officer, have entry regulated, and record a note on the order sheet about the disturbance; report to the District Judge if it persists. (ii) Hear the application on its legal merits - the nature of the accusation, the antecedents, the investigation stage, the statutory parameters for anticipatory bail, and the reasons in a written order. (iii) Record expressly that the presence of the public and the political connection of the accused have not influenced the decision. (iv) Refuse to meet the MLA or his emissaries, and report any attempt at pressure in writing to the District Judge.
What must be avoided is a decision that appears to lean either way because of who the accused is, and an unexplained adjournment sought by the prosecution because the crowd makes the court uneasy.
2. Can you continue to hear the title suit in which your former senior appears? What, if anything, must you disclose?
Read the worked answer
The relationship is professional, not personal. A former senior is not a relative, and the conduct rules do not bar a judicial officer from hearing matters in which a former colleague or senior appears. But the objective test of reasonable apprehension of bias still applies.
The first question is whether you had anything to do with that litigation while in practice - whether you drafted the pleadings, appeared at any stage, or had a financial interest in its outcome. If you did, recuse at once; the connection is direct and no order passed by you would survive scrutiny.
If you did not, the correct course is: disclose the relationship on the order sheet and on the administrative side to the District Judge, invite any objection from either party, and proceed only if neither objects, or if the objection is frivolous. If a reasonable objection is taken, request the District Judge to reassign the case.
Frequent recusal is itself a systemic problem. It burdens other courts and allows litigants to pick their judge by manoeuvring a case before or away from a particular court. The line to be drawn is: recuse where the connection is personal, financial, family-based, or involves prior participation; do not recuse merely because counsel is a former senior or chamber colleague, provided disclosure is made and the court is seen to be impartial.
3. How should you respond to the investigating officer's proposed nocturnal visit with the case diary?
Read the worked answer
The visit must be refused, clearly and immediately. Two rules are breached by it: an investigator may not communicate with a judicial officer about a pending case outside the court, and a judicial officer may not receive the case diary in private. The case diary is to be produced in court, and the accused is entitled to be heard on the bail application.
Course of action: (i) on the telephone, tell the officer that he must produce the case diary in court at the hearing and that no private meeting is possible; (ii) note the time and the gist of the call on the file so that the record speaks; (iii) if he appears at the residence, do not see him; if he appears informally at court, direct him to produce the material in open court or to file an application; (iv) report the incident in writing to the District Judge, and, if repeated, to the Superintendent of Police; (v) at the hearing, hear the Public Prosecutor and the defence, and if either side raises the officer's conduct, record it and pass orders on it.
The governing principle is that justice must not only be done but be seen to be done. Private access by an investigator to a judicial officer in a custody matter is among the gravest forms of interference with judicial independence, and the record of the refusal is the officer's protection as much as yours.