Delhi HC judge recuses from hearing 2020 riots accused’s plea over alleged media leak

New Delhi: Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani of the Delhi High Court has recused himself from hearing a petition filed by a northeast Delhi riots accused, Asif Iqbal Tanha, against the alleged leak of his “disclosure statement” in a case pertaining to the “larger conspiracy” behind the communal violence that took place here in 2020, saying a court’s act should never have a deleterious impact on the justice system’s credibility.

Justice Bhambhani had earlier expressed his reservations on hearing the matter after the News Broadcasters and Digital Association (NBDA), with whom he had had a “past association”, filed an intervention application in the case.He said the court’s view must yield in favour of preserving the system’s credibility, which is derived not just from “fairness in fact”, but also from “fairness in perception”.

“In the larger interest of the overall credibility of the justice system, this court is persuaded to recuse from the matter,” the judge opined.

“After giving its anxious consideration to the matter, what prevails with the court is that no act on the part of a court must in any manner have a deleterious impact on the credibility of the justice system. Regardless of the view that this court may hold in relation to the intervention applications filed, that view must yield to the view which better subserves to preserve the credibility of the system, which credibility derives not just from fairness in fact, but equally importantly, from fairness in perception,” the judge said in his order passed last week.

Directing that the petition be listed for hearing before another bench on April 19, subject to orders of the chief justice, the court said it was not expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. Tanha moved the high court in 2020 against certain media houses disseminating his alleged admission of his guilt before cognisance was taken by the trial court.

He had objected to the “intervention” by the NBDA in the matter on the ground that the association, which was “not interested” in the issue of broadcast of the alleged disclosure statement when a complaint was made to it, had now filed the intervention application in order to ensure that the eventuality of the judge’s recusal “must come true”.