The legal battles of Indian Forest Service (IFS) officer Sanjiv Chaturvedi, recognized as a whistleblower, have taken a peculiar turn as 16 judges have recused themselves from hearing his cases. This unprecedented number of recusals, involving judges across various levels of the judiciary, including the Supreme Court, High Courts, and lower courts, has raised concerns about the challenges faced by whistleblowers in the Indian judicial system.
Sanjiv Chaturvedi gained prominence for his meticulous documentation of corruption during his tenure as the chief vigilance officer at Delhi's All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS). His reports implicated senior bureaucrats, ministers, and institutional heads, leading to numerous legal battles with government agencies.
The series of recusals began with Justice Alok Verma of the Uttarakhand High Court stepping away from a contempt case filed by Chaturvedi. This particular case alleges that members of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) deliberately ignored a court stay order. Prior to Justice Verma's recusal, 15 other judges had already withdrawn from cases involving Chaturvedi. These include two former Supreme Court justices, Justices U.U. Lalit and Ranjan Gogoi, four High Court judges, two lower court judges, and eight CAT members, including a former Chairman.
According to Chaturvedi, this is a "unique record" in the country where 16 judges recused themselves from hearing a single individual's cases. Previously, 10 judges had recused themselves from hearing the case of mafia leader Atiq Ahmed.
The reasons behind these recusals remain largely unexplained. In many instances, the judges have offered no specific justification for their withdrawal, simply stating that the case should be listed before another bench. This lack of transparency has fueled speculation and concern among legal experts and the public.
The situation has prompted the Chief Justice of Uttarakhand High Court, G Narendra, to constitute a new bench headed by himself to hear Chaturvedi's contempt petition against the Central Administrative Tribunal. This move aims to address the logjam created by the repeated recusals and ensure that Chaturvedi's case receives a fair hearing. The division bench, comprising the Chief Justice and Justice Subhash Upadhyay, is scheduled to hear the contempt petition on October 30.
Chaturvedi's journey as a whistleblower has been marked by numerous challenges. In Haryana, where he was first posted, he exposed illegal tree-felling, sand mining, and wildlife poaching, allegedly protected by elements within the state's bureaucracy and political leadership. He faced frequent transfers and was even suspended at one point, although the suspension was later reversed by Presidential order.
Despite the obstacles, Chaturvedi has continued to fight against corruption, often arguing his own cases in court. His dedication to exposing wrongdoing has earned him recognition, including the Ramon Magsaysay Award. However, the repeated judicial recusals highlight the difficulties that whistleblowers can face in seeking justice and accountability. The high number of judges recusing themselves raises questions about potential pressures or conflicts of interest that may be influencing the judicial process. It also underscores the need for greater transparency and accountability in the handling of whistleblower cases to ensure that they are given a fair and impartial hearing.
