GUWAHATI: Gauhati High Court Bar Association (GHCBA) President Kamal Nayan Choudhury has sought the recusal of Justice N Unni Krishnan Nair from adjudicating contempt of court petitions filed against him and two other advocates. The plea was raised on the ground that Justice Nair had 'liked' an online post related to the ongoing case, raising apprehensions about impartiality, according to a BarandBench report published on Thursday, April 10.
ALSO READ: Dust Storm Engulfs Guwahati Following IMD Weather Alert
The contempt petitions had been filed by Advocate General (AG) Devajit Saikia against Choudhury, Advocate Pallavi Talukdar and Senior Advocate Anil Kumar Bhattacharya. The allegations stem from comments made by the three in relation to Justice Suman Shyam, during protests against the proposed relocation of the Gauhati High Court from its current location to Rangmahal in North Guwahati.
The matter was initially heard on April 8 by a bench comprising Chief Justice Vijay Bishnoi and Justice Nair, which had then reserved its order. However, the next day, Choudhury mentioned the matter before the same bench, stating that Justice Nair had liked a vernacular news post on social media that claimed criminal action had been initiated against certain lawyers of the association.
Citing the potential impact on the fairness of the proceedings, Choudhury submitted that Justice Nair should recuse himself from hearing the case. Chief Justice Bishnoi acknowledged the submission and stated that the court would consider the prayer while proceeding with other listed matters.
The controversy traces back to a protest held by the Bar Association on March 24 against the proposal to relocate the high court building. During the protest, Talukdar and Bhattacharya made public remarks questioning the integrity of Justice Suman Shyam, who had attended a government meeting with Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma and Chief Justice Vijay Bishnoi on the relocation plan.
AG Saikia argued that the statements constituted an “institutional attack” on the judiciary rather than criticism of an individual judge. He claimed the president of the bar association failed to take disciplinary action and filed the contempt petitions on the basis of Choudhury’s alleged complicity.
Choudhury, however, denied responsibility for the remarks made by the other advocates, asserting that the petitions were driven by personal animosity. He also opposed the issuance of notices to him, arguing that mere association with the speakers should not render him liable for contempt.
The proposed relocation of the court, which is approximately 20 km from the current site, remains a contentious issue, with members of the bar expressing concerns over accessibility and lack of consultation.