The High Court of Chhattisgarh, in a bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, has clarified that an administrative circular issued to curb the practice of “Bench hunting” is intended solely as a “note of caution” and does not mandate recusal. The Court emphasized that judicial discretion remains paramount for every Bench, and the circular serves to protect the sanctity of court functioning from litigants seeking to advance vested interests.
Background
The matter pertains to a First Appeal (Matrimonial) filed by the appellant against the respondent. The appeal was admitted by a coordinate Bench on August 21, 2025. However, during a subsequent hearing on April 17, 2026, one of the members of the coordinate Bench recused himself from hearing the matter.
In the process of recusal, the previous Division Bench observed that a Circular dated April 16, 2026, issued by the Registrar (Judicial) under the orders of the Chief Justice, “appears to be interference of the Court functioning.” Consequently, the matter was placed before the Chief Justice on the administrative side to ensure judicial discipline and propriety.
The Court’s Analysis and Administrative Clarification
Addressing the notion of “interference,” the Chief Justice passed an administrative order on April 25, 2026, clarifying the intent of the directive. The Court noted that such a notion was certainly not the intent behind the issuance of the said Circular.
Explaining the necessity of the measure, the Court observed:
“The Circular has been issued in view of certain recent instances that have come to notice indicating attempts of Bench hunting, and is intended solely to ensure that the Court/Bench does not inadvertently become a tool in the hands of the litigants seeking to advance vested interests and to avoid possibility of Bench hunting.”
The High Court further clarified that the Circular is not a mandate for recusal. Instead, it is designed to ensure that the Bench is not “inadvertently influenced or misled in matters of appearance.” The Court reiterated the independence of the judiciary, stating:
“At the same time, in any given case, the Hon’ble Court/Bench is always at liberty to take an appropriate decision, including recusal, in its judicial discretion.”
Proceedings and Current Status
Following the administrative order, the matter was reassigned and listed before Division Bench-I today. Senior Advocate Manoj Paranjpe, appearing for the appellant, informed the Court that the matter had been listed for orders on default regarding the non-supply of the paper book.
The counsel submitted that although the paper book was ready, the Registry had pointed out certain defects. He requested one week to remove these defects and file the corrected paper book.
Decision
The Court accepted the submission and reassigned the matter to maintain judicial propriety. The Bench directed:
“In view of the same, as time has been sought for removing the defects in the paper book, we deem it proper to direct that the fresh paper book be supplied within a week to the office and the matter be listed thereafter again for final hearing on 18th of June, 2026.”
Case Details
Case Title: Ayushi Ginoria (Agrawal) Versus Sumit Agrawal
Case No.: FA(MAT) No. 287 of 2025
Bench: Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal
Date: April 29, 2026
