High Court judges who previously served in state government advisory or executive roles must be statutorily disqualified from presiding over cases involving that state government to protect judicial impartiality.
Aaj ki debate ka motion yeh hai: 'High Court Judges with prior State Government roles should be recused from State disputes' — yani kya un judges ko, jo pehle State ke kisi government post par reh chuke hain, us State se judi cases mein baithne se rok dena chahiye? Yeh ek bohot hi mahatvapurna sawaal hai jo judicial independence aur public trust in judiciary — dono ko chhuta hai. Main Counsel Aarav se nivedan karungi ki woh apna paksh rakhna shuru karen.
My lord, is motion ka core yeh hai ki jab ek High Court judge ne apni poori career State Government ke ek functionary ke roop mein bitayi ho — State ke orders execute kiye hon, State ki policies mein hissa liya ho — to aaj wahi judge usi State ke disputes mein neutral arbitrator kaise ban sakta hai? Article 226 ke tahat High Courts ko extraordinary writ jurisdiction milti hai, aur yeh jurisdiction tab hi meaningful hai jab usse exercise karne waala judge usi State ke saath koi prior allegiance ya interest nahi rakhta; warna justice ki appearance hi khatam ho jaati hai. Nemo judex in causa sua — koi apne hi cause mein judge nahi ho sakta — yeh principle tab aur bhi strong ho jaata hai jab Article 226 ki broad 'any other purpose' jurisdiction State ke seedhe khilaaf writs sunne ka mauka deti hai.
Ref: Constitution of India · Article 226
My Lord, vipaksh ki taraf se main yeh kehna chahti hoon ki is motion mein jo blanket recusal ka demand hai, woh naa toh constitutionally grounded hai, naa hi practically tenable — kyunki Article 226 ke tahat High Court ko writ jurisdiction di gayi hai 'any other purpose' ke liye bhi, jo ek broad, independent constitutional mandate hai, aur iska matlab yeh nahi ki past State service se koi inherent bias paida hoti hai. Article 226 yeh nahi kehta ki judge ki prior affiliation uski jurisdiction ko taint karti hai — woh jurisdiction Constitution se milti hai, State Government ki approval se nahi. Isliye prior State role se automatic recusal ki demand ek blanket presumption hai jo judicial independence ke mool siddhant ke khilaf jaati hai, aur main is motion ka poora vipaksh karti hoon.
Ref: Constitution of India · Article 226
My lord, vipaksh kehta hai ki judges apne oath ke baad neutral ho jaate hain — lekin yeh sirf ek assumption hai, structural conflict of interest ka jawab nahi. Article 226 ke under High Court ko state ke khilaf writs issue karne ki vast power di gayi hai, aur jab koi judge us state government ke liye kaam kar chuka ho, toh us power ka exercise karna institutionally compromised dikhta hai — perception of bias bhi justice ka hissa hai. Rajasthan State Highway Act, Section 46-2(e) khud kehta hai ki 'financial ya other interest jo functions ko prejudicially affect kare' — woh disqualification ka aadhar hai; toh yeh principle already statutory framework mein hai ki prior interest recusal ko justify karta hai.
Ref: Constitution of India · Article 226; RAJASTHAN STATE HIGHWAY ACT 2014 · Section 46-2
My Lord, paksh ne jo baat kahi woh sirf ek assumption hai — ki poorva sambandh hamesha bias mein badlega. Main yeh maanti hoon ki judicial independence zaroori hai, lekin recusal ka niyam tab laagu hota hai jab actual bias ya real danger of bias sabit ho — sirf prior role ka hona iska proof nahi hota. Agar hum is motion ko maanein, to har woh judge jo kabhi kisi bhi rajya sarkar se juda raha ho — chahe ek saal ke liye — woh poori zindagi un maamlon se bahar ho jaayega; yeh judicial resource ka bhaari nuksaan hai aur justice delivery ko kamzor karti hai, jo asli public interest ke khilaaf hai.
Petitioner-side ka kehna hai ki prior State government roles se bias ka realistic apprehension paida hota hai, aur isliye aisi recusal zaroori hai — jabki Respondent-side maanti hai ki mere qualification aur oath se judicial independence sthaapit hoti hai, aur blanket recusal rule constitutional structure ko kamzor karega. Meri balanced legal suggestion yeh hai: ek spasht, judge-specific disclosure protocol adopt kiya jaaye — jisme concerned judge apne prior role aur us State ke saath sambandh ko record par laaye aur Chief Justice ko case allocate karne ka vivek de — taaki naa to judiciary ki independence ghate, aur naa hi litigant ka fair hearing ka adhikar. Ab main citizens se nivedan karti hoon ki is debate ko rate karein aur apni raay share karein.