Gauhati HC Bar President seeks judge’s recusal for liking social media post related to contempt case

A fresh twist emerged in the ongoing legal standoff involving senior members of the Gauhati High Court Bar Association (GHCBA) as its President, Kamal Nayan Choudhury, on Wednesday sought the recusal of Justice N. Unni Krishnan Nair from adjudicating contempt petitions filed by Advocate General (AG) Devajit Saikia. The petitions target Choudhury and two other advocates over public remarks made against a sitting High Court judge.

The recusal request was prompted by Justice Nair's alleged interaction with a social media post linked to the case. The post, published by news outlet Prag News, reportedly stated that criminal action had been initiated against certain lawyers from the Association. Choudhury pointed out that Justice Nair had "liked" the post, raising concerns about possible bias.

"It is my duty to bring this to the notice of the court. A judge adjudicating the matter appears to have endorsed content suggesting criminality against lawyers who are party to the case," Choudhury submitted during court proceedings on April 9.

Chief Justice Vijay Bishnoi, who is presiding over the Bench alongside Justice Nair, acknowledged the plea, stating that the court would decide on the recusal request in due course.

The contempt proceedings stem from recent protests led by the GHCBA against the proposed relocation of the High Court premises. AG Saikia had initiated two separate contempt petitions against Choudhury, Advocate Pallavi Talukdar, and Senior Advocate Anil Kumar Bhattacharya, accusing them of making disparaging remarks against Justice Suman Shyam in media interviews.

Terming the remarks as an "institutional attack," Saikia argued that the Bar President failed to take disciplinary action against the erring members. In defense, Choudhury contended that the petitions were filed with “personal animosity” and insisted he should not be held liable for statements made by others.

Earlier, on April 3, the High Court issued a press statement strongly condemning the derogatory remarks made against Justice Shyam and questioned the Association’s inaction despite distancing itself from the statements.

The court had previously reserved its order on the contempt petitions after a preliminary hearing held on April 8.