Lawyers’ body flags relief granted to Roopam by unlisted judge

The Lawyers Association for Constitution (LAFC) has called for clarity from the Chief Justice of India (CJI) regarding an unusual assignment of Gautam Budh Nagar district magistrate Medha Roopam's petition to a judge without the appropriate roster to hear cases of preventive detention. This came to light after news reports revealed that the order granting relief to Roopam, passed by a bench of justices Satish Chandra Sharma and N Kotiswar Singh on September 23, was heard despite Sharma's lack of jurisdiction over the matter.

LAFC questioned how justice Sharma, whose son is a panel lawyer at the Election Commission of India (ECI) in Madhya Pradesh, was part of the bench that decided the case. The organization emphasized the need for a transparent protocol regarding disclosure and recusal in such situations, particularly when close relatives of a judge are engaged as counsel by a party. They urged the court to recall the order and list the matter before a judge assigned the correct roster for handling cases of preventive detention.

The issue is further complicated by a split verdict on whether the case should be heard by a five-judge Constitution bench. Justice Sharma advocated for a Constitution bench hearing, while others preferred a five-judge bench. Both judges have recommended the CJI to constitute a five-judge bench. The LAFC stressed that the Supreme Court's principles exist to protect both judges and litigants, focusing on whether a fair-minded observer might reasonably suspect bias, rather than whether a specific judge was influenced.