The Supreme Court of India, led by a Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva, has emphasized that in the interest of judicial propriety, a judge should not entertain or issue orders in proceedings involving land associated with a former client. Examining a challenge to multiple interim orders passed by a single Judge of the Uttarakhand High Court concerning land where the Judge had previously represented one of the parties, the apex court observed that justice must not only be done but must also be seen to be done. However, taking note of existing undertakings against tree felling, the apex court declined to disturb the interim orders at this stage, leaving all issues open for an appropriate Bench of the High Court to decide, while referring the matter to the Chief Justice of the High Court of Uttarakhand for suitable administrative directions.
Background of the Case
The matter reached the Supreme Court through Special Leave Petitions filed by Prateek Resorts and Builders Private Limited against interim orders dated May 20, 2026, May 21, 2026, June 1, 2026, June 17, 2026, and July 20, 2026. These orders were passed by a single Judge of the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in Criminal Writ Petition No. 762/2026.
Two connected writ petitions, Criminal Writ Petition Nos. 1431/2026 and 762/2026, were pending before the High Court Judge. The petitioner, Prateek Resorts & Builders Private Limited, had filed an application seeking to be impleaded in the proceedings, which remained pending consideration. Crucially, the presiding High Court Judge had earlier appeared as counsel for Prateek Resorts & Builders Private Limited in an earlier case, WPMS No. 1478/2013, which concerned the very same parcel of land subject to the enquiry and interim orders in the present criminal writ petitions.
Submissions and Facts Before the Court
The petitioner brought to the Supreme Court’s attention that the land involved in the present proceedings was identical to the property involved in the 2013 writ petition where the High Court Judge had acted as advocate for the company. Furthermore, it was highlighted that the scope of the original writ petitions had been expanded by the High Court through the impugned interim orders to cover issues beyond the original prayers.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The Supreme Court expressed strong reservations regarding the High Court Judge entertaining the matter and expanding its scope. On the core issue of judicial ethics and recusal, the Bench stated:
“In such circumstances, in the interest of judicial propriety, the learned Judge ought not to have entertained and passed orders in the matter. Trite to state, justice must not only be done but must also be seen to be done. Passing orders either in favour of or against a former client, a private entity, does not further that cause.”
Addressing the expansion of the writ petitions’ scope beyond their original context, the Supreme Court noted:
“That apart, we may also note that the writ petitions filed before the learned Judge were on altogether different issues and the scope of those writ petitions has been enlarged by the learned Judge by way of the impugned interim orders. Even if such an exercise was taken up with the best of intentions, it was not proper for the learned Judge to do so in writ petitions which had nothing to do with the issues sought to be addressed.”
The Court further clarified the correct procedure to be followed when a judge identifies issues of potential public interest, observing:
“In the event the learned Judge was of the opinion that this was a matter that required to be espoused in the cause of public interest, appropriate steps could have been taken by placing the matter before the Public Interest Litigation Committee constituted in the High Court or by referring the matter to the Hon’ble The Chief Justice of the High Court for necessary measures to be taken in accordance with due procedure.”
Decision of the Court
Despite noting procedural improperness, the Supreme Court refrained from setting aside the impugned interim orders or disturbing the undertakings given regarding environmental protection. The Court pointed out that undertakings had been submitted regarding not cutting down trees, which currently held the field.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court left all factual and legal questions open, including the validity of the impugned interim orders, to be adjudicated by an appropriate Bench of the High Court when it takes up the matter.
The apex court directed that its order be communicated to the Chief Justice of the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital to take suitable measures regarding the listing of Criminal Writ Petition Nos. 762/2026 and 1431/2026, as well as the initiation of a public interest litigation if deemed warranted. With these directions, the Special Leave Petitions were disposed of.
Case Title: Prateek Resorts and Builders Private Limited v. Puneet Agrawal & Ors.
Case No.: Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Diary No. 43814/2026
Bench: Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva
Date: July 27, 2026
