Two judges from the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Harvinder Kaur Oberoi and B Anand, have recused themselves from hearing cases involving Indian Forest Service (IFS) officer Sanjiv Chaturvedi.
This brings the total number of judicial recusals in his cases to 13, a development that legal experts consider unprecedented.
A pattern of judicial recusals
The judges' withdrawal from the case follows a long-standing trend of recusals across multiple judicial forums. So far, the following judges have stepped away from hearing matters related to Chaturvedi:
- Two Supreme Court judges
- Two Uttarakhand High Court judges
- The CAT Chairman
- A Shimla trial court judge
- Seven CAT judges from Delhi and Allahabad benches
The latest CAT order, issued on February 19, directed the tribunal's registry not to list Chaturvedi's cases further. However, the order did not specify the reason behind the judges' decision to withdraw.
The case and its implications
Sanjiv Chaturvedi has been entangled in multiple legal battles regarding his performance evaluation reports, deputation matters, and allegations of corruption within government institutions. His legal team argues that repeated recusals have delayed justice and obstructed fair hearings on his service-related grievances.
Chaturvedi’s deputation case was previously heard by the Uttarakhand High Court, which ruled in 2018 that all his service matters should be heard at the Nainital circuit bench. This decision was upheld by the Supreme Court. However, in March 2023, a division bench of the apex court referred the matter to a larger bench for further review.
Judicial recusals over the years
The trend of recusals in Chaturvedi’s cases dates back to November 2013, when then-Supreme Court judge Justice Ranjan Gogoi withdrew from hearing his petition for a CBI probe into corruption allegations against former Haryana Chief Minister Bhupinder Singh Hooda and other senior officials.
Later, in August 2016, Justice U U Lalit also recused himself from the same case. Since then, several judges have stepped away from hearing Chaturvedi’s matters, including:
- April 2018 – A Shimla trial court judge withdrew from a defamation case filed against Chaturvedi by senior IAS officer Vineet Chowdhary.
- March 2019 – CAT Delhi Chairman Justice L Narasimhan Reddy recused himself from hearing Chaturvedi’s transfer petitions due to "unfortunate developments."
- February 2021 – CAT Delhi judge Justice R N Singh withdrew from Chaturvedi’s petition challenging lateral entry appointments in the central government at the joint secretary level.
- May 2023 – A bench of the Uttarakhand High Court withdrew from hearing Chaturvedi’s case without providing any explanation.
- November 2023 – Nainital CAT judges Manish Garg and Chhabilendra Roul refused to hear his case, stating they had "no personal interest" in the matter.
- January 2024 – CAT judge Justice Rajeev Joshi stepped away from a service-related case concerning Chaturvedi.
- February 2024 – CAT judge A S Khati also withdrew from hearing his matter.
A whistleblower’s legal struggles
Sanjiv Chaturvedi, a 2002-batch IFS officer, gained national attention for exposing multiple scams in the Haryana forest department between 2007 and 2012. His investigations led to several corruption cases, but he faced 12 transfers in five years, suspension, and disciplinary actions.
After he filed a complaint with the President of India, the Haryana government was compelled to revoke his suspension. In 2012, he was formally designated as a whistleblower under the Whistle Blowers Protection Act.
For his anti-corruption efforts, Chaturvedi was awarded the Ramon Magsaysay Award in 2015, often called Asia’s Nobel Prize.
Also Read: Delhi court summons Lalu Prasad, kin in job scam case
A case unlike any other
The record-breaking number of recusals in Chaturvedi’s cases has drawn comparisons to other high-profile legal matters. For example, during the bail hearings of notorious mafia don Atiq Ahmed, 10 judges of the Allahabad High Court recused themselves from the case. However, legal experts emphasise that comparing a whistleblower officer to a criminal is unjust and inappropriate.
The growing pattern of judicial recusals raises serious questions about the legal system’s ability to ensure fair hearings for whistleblowers. While some civil servants criticise Chaturvedi for his confrontational approach, others silently admire his resilience in the face of systemic challenges.
As Chaturvedi continues his legal fight, the series of recusals only underscores the complexity and sensitivity of his ongoing battle against corruption.
Also Read: Jamiat challenges Centre's remarks on halal rules in SC
Follow us
