The Supreme Court on Wednesday rejected Gujarat’s sacked IPS officer Sanjiv Bhatt’s request for a judge to be recused from hearing a case involving his conviction and life sentence in a custodial death case, concluding that it was an attempt made with a mala fide intention to engage in forum shopping and bench hunting. Sanjiv Bhatt had sought the recusal of Justice M R Shah, which was rejected by a bench comprising Justice M R Shah and Justice C T Ravikumar.
The court was hearing a special leave petition filed by Bhatt seeking to add additional evidence in the appeal filed by him in Gujarat High Court challenging his conviction in a custodial death case. In the same SLP, he had sought recusal of Justing Shah from hearing his case, but the Supreme Court judge refused to recuse.
The bench remarked that earlier a bench headed by Justice M R Shah had heard a special leave petition of Bhatt related to the same FIR, and no such objection was raised and no such appeal was made at that time. They highlighted that the prayer of recusal was not invoked despite the current special leave petition being notified and addressed numerous times.
“When the special leave petition is taken up for further hearing and actually being heard, the letter (for recusal) is pressed into service, which is nothing but an attempt on the part of the petitioner to avoid the Bench, which is required to be deprecated,” the bench asserted.
They emphasised, “We are of the opinion that the request of recusal is nothing but an attempt to indulge in forum shopping and bench hunting and to avoid the bench with mala fide intention.”
Senior attorney Devadatt Kamat, representing the former officer, sought the removal of Justice M R Shah on the grounds that, in 2011 when the High Court decided a case arising from the same FIR, the court issued strict guidelines against the petitioner’s conduct due to his use of delay tactics.
“Justice is not only to be done but also seen to be done. Judicial propriety would demand that your lordship may not hear this matter,” he submitted.
“Earlier, merely because some proceedings might have been heard by one of us before the High Court in connection with the present matter and/or proceedings and some observations might have been made against the petitioner on the delaying tactics, cannot be a ground to accede to the request made by the petitioner,” the bench proclaimed.
Both senior lawyer A N S Nadkarni and senior advocate Maninder Singh, speaking on behalf of the original complainant and the Gujarat government respectively, fiercely rejected the motion, asserting that it is nothing more than a manoeuvre to manipulate the legal system.
“He is effectively saying that you are biased against me. That is a dangerous submission, with no bona fides,” charged Maninder Singh. He stressed that such behaviour violates the court’s authority and added that every bench that has heard Sanjiv Bhatt’s case, in both the Supreme Court and the High Court, commented adversely about him.
“Judicial orders can never be a subject matter of bias. If that is the case, a party will say that a judge should not hear a matter because of an interim order passed in the case,” argued A N S Nadkarni. He postulated the mere fact that a judge has commented in a previous case against a party will not amount to bias.
They reported that previously when the petitioner came before this court in a case stemming from the same FIR and involving an order against the High Court’s denial to suspend the sentence, no similar demand was made.
The ex-IPS has filed the Special Leave Petition through Attorney Aljo Joseph in an effort to overturn the High Court’s ruling from August 24, 2022, which barred him from submitting more material in support of his appeal under Section 391 CrPC.
After being found guilty on June 20, 2019, in a case involving a three-decade-old custodial death of Prabhudas Madhavji Vaishnani in 1990, Sanjiv Bhatt was given a life sentence by a court in Jamnagar. The court also denied a special leave plea challenging the High Court’s decision to depose three doctors in the case.
“Having gone through the impugned order passed by the High Court, we see no reason to interfere with the same in the exercise of powers under Article 136 of the Constitution of India,” the bench established.
“Any observations by this Court on the deposition of the aforesaid 3 witnesses may ultimately affect the case of either party in the Appeal, which is yet to be considered by the High Court. Therefore, the Special Leave Petition stands dismissed,” the court announced.
“It is observed that the High Court to finally decide and dispose of the appeal strictly in accordance with law and on merits and on re-appreciation of the entire evidence on record which were considered by the trial Court and without in any way influenced by any of the observations made by the High Court in the impugned order so far as the cause of death is concerned and any observations made by the High Court in the impugned order shall be confined to deciding the application under Section 391 Criminal Procedure Code Only,” the bench pronounced.
“With this, the present Special Leave Petition stands dismissed/disposed of,” the top court concluded.
In 2015, Sanjiv Bhatt was removed from the police service, on the grounds of unauthorised absence. In October 2015, the Supreme Court quashed his plea for constituting a special investigation team (SIT) for cases filed against him by Gujarat Government. The court lifted a stay on his trial in these cases and asked him to face prosecution.
The court observed, “Bhatt was in active touch with leaders of rival political parties, was being tutored by NGOs, was involved in politics and activism of creating pressure, even upon the three-judge bench of this court, amicus and many others.”
In the custodial death case, had submitted a request to the trial court to present the expert testimony of one doctor to support his claim that the death was not caused by the coerced sit-ups the police made him perform. The application had been turned down by the trial court.
He pitched to introduce the expert testimony in the criminal appeal before the Gujarat High Court in an application made according to Section 391 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). A division bench of Justices Vipul M. Pancholi and Sandeep N. Bhatt dismissed the application on August 24, 2022.
He filed an affidavit in the Supreme Court in April 2011 charging then-Chief Minister Narendra Modi of involvement in the riots of 2002. On February 27, 2002, the day of the communal riots, he was alleged to have been present in a meeting called by the latter where it was ordered that the state police not pursue criminal charges against the violent offenders.
However, the Special Investigation Team (SIT), which was established by the court, cleared the incumbent prime minister Narendra Modi of all the accusations.
