HC recuses, questions ‘bench hunting’ circular

Raipur: A two-judge division bench of Chhattisgarh high court recused itself from hearing in a family dispute case, raising concern over a recent administrative circular aimed at curbing ‘bench hunting'.Significantly, however, it observed that the circular, though intended to prevent bench hunting, "cannot direct or restrict" how a court should function in such matters."The said circular, thus, appears to be an interference in the court's functioning," the bench stated.Citing Rule 6, Part VI, Chapter II of the Standards of Professional Conduct and Etiquette under the Advocate Act, which discourages advocates from appearing before courts where close relatives serve as judges, the court said whether a case warrants recusal is the prerogative of the bench concerned.The recusal was prompted by the appearance of a junior counsel in the case who is related to a judge on the bench. The division bench of Justice Sanjay S Agrawal and Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas directed that the matter be listed before an appropriate bench excluding one of its members. The bench noted that the presence of the counsel—who is a niece of one of the judges—made it ‘not desirable' for the bench to proceed with the matter, emphasising the need to avoid any ‘unwanted controversy' and uphold professional ethics.The bench also took note of a circular issued on April 16, 2026, under the directions of the Chief Justice, which seeks to restrict the practice of ‘bench/court hunting'. Circular mandates that exceptions to a bench should be made only in rare and bona fide circumstances and advises advocates not to accept briefs that may lead to recusal situations due to personal or professional relationships with judges.It further clarifies that even if such briefs are accepted, they should not automatically become grounds for seeking an exception from a particular bench. In pending matters, advocates are given the liberty to withdraw their appearance, failing which the court may examine the circumstances in detail, it states.In view of the recusal and the issues raised, the bench directed that the case be placed before the Chief Justice for appropriate orders.