In a significant development ensuring judicial propriety, Supreme Court Justice K.V. Viswanathan has recused himself from a case involving Alchemist Asset Reconstruction Company Private Limited. The decision comes after the bench had already concluded hearings and reserved its final verdict last month.
The recusal was prompted by the discovery that Justice Viswanathan had previously represented the appellant as a counsel during the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) involving the principal borrower.
The primary legal issue concerned the potential conflict of interest arising from a judge hearing a matter in which they had previously acted as an advocate for one of the parties. Following the disclosure of this prior professional engagement, the bench, which also included Justice J.B. Pardiwala, opted to recall its earlier order and move the case to a different bench to maintain the integrity of the judicial process.
The matter was brought before the apex court by Alchemist Asset Reconstruction Company Private Limited. It was heard on April 1 by a division bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K.V. Viswanathan.
Justice Viswanathan’s background is notable for his direct elevation from the Bar to the Supreme Court on May 19, 2023. Prior to his elevation, he was a distinguished senior advocate, having been designated as such by the Supreme Court in April 2009. His extensive career at the Bar meant he had represented numerous high-profile clients in complex corporate and insolvency matters.
The bench noted that the conflict only came to light after the final arguments had concluded. In a formal statement, the bench explained the necessity of the recusal:
“This matter was heard finally, and the judgment was reserved. After the judgment came to be reserved, it has come to the notice of K V Viswanathan… that his lordship had appeared as a counsel for the appellant herein in the corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) against the principal borrower (corporate debtor).”
The judgment in the case had originally been reserved on March 17. However, the revelation of the judge’s prior involvement as counsel for the appellant necessitated a stay on the delivery of the verdict.
In light of these developments, the bench officially recalled its March 17 order. The court directed that the matter be removed from their purview and listed before a different bench.
“In view of the development, the bench recalled its March 17 order and directed that the matter be listed before another bench, as may be directed by the Chief Justice of India,” the court stated. The final assignment of the case now rests with the Chief Justice of India (CJI).
