Repeated Recusals Highlight Risks to Justice and Institutional Autonomy
Justice Alok Verma of the Uttarakhand High Court has formally recused himself from hearing a contempt petition filed by Indian Forest Service (IFS) officer Sanjiv Chaturvedi (2002 batch). With this move, he becomes the 16th judicial officer to withdraw from cases linked to the prominent whistleblower.
In his succinct order dated October 8, Justice Verma merely stated: “List before another Bench,” offering no explanation — a trend consistent with most earlier recusals in Chaturvedi’s ongoing legal battles.
Alarming Pattern of Judicial Recusals
The unfolding scenario represents an unprecedented situation in India’s legal history. Rarely has a single litigant, especially a whistleblower exposing corruption at high levels, encountered 16 separate recusals across various judicial forums, including the Supreme Court, High Courts, lower courts, and the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT).
The breakdown of recusals so far is:
Supreme Court Judges: 2
High Court Judges: 4
Lower Court Judges: 2
CAT Judges (including former chairman): 8
Most judges have not provided reasons for stepping aside, fueling speculation about external pressure, potential conflicts of interest, or unease in handling politically sensitive cases implicating senior bureaucrats and politicians.
2025 Alone Sees Multiple Recusals
This year has seen a spike in judicial withdrawals in Chaturvedi’s matters:
February 2025: CAT Judges Harvinder Oberai and B Anand
April 2025: ACJM Neha Kushwaha, citing familial connection to a former CAT judge
September 26, 2025: Justice Ravindra Maithani, Senior Judge, Uttarakhand High Court
October 8, 2025: Justice Alok Verma, Uttarakhand High Court
Justice Verma had been part of the Division Bench that regularly dealt with Chaturvedi’s petitions until August 29, 2025. The recent recusal pertained to a contempt case involving CAT members and registry officials.
A History of Judicial Reluctance
Chaturvedi, famed for exposing corruption at senior administrative levels, has repeatedly faced judicial hesitance:
2013: Justice Ranjan Gogoi recused from a Supreme Court petition seeking CBI probe against Haryana CM Bhupinder Singh Hooda.
2018: Shimla court judge withdrew from a defamation case tied to Chaturvedi’s AIIMS corruption reports.
2019: CAT Chairman Justice L. Narasimhan Reddy stepped down, citing “unfortunate developments.”
2023: CAT Judges Manish Garg and Chchabilendra Roul recused from cases concerning ACC empanelment documents.
January 2025: CAT Judge Rajeev Joshi recused from a central deputation-related matter before Lokpal.
Previously, the Uttarakhand High Court (2018) had mandated that a case regarding Chaturvedi’s Appraisal Report be heard exclusively at the Nainital Circuit Bench, penalizing the Centre for attempting to move it to Delhi — a decision later upheld by the Supreme Court.
Implications for Whistleblowers and Judicial Independence
Legal analysts warn that these repeated recusals could have a chilling effect on whistleblowers seeking justice. The reluctance of judges to adjudicate matters involving senior officials undermines both public confidence in the judiciary and the principle of institutional independence.
A retired High Court judge, speaking off the record, commented:
“Sixteen recusals in one individual’s case is extraordinary and a serious warning sign. It reveals systemic discomfort with cases implicating powerful entities.”
The Core of Chaturvedi’s Legal Struggle
Sanjiv Chaturvedi’s litigation arises from his tenure as Chief Vigilance Officer at AIIMS, where he uncovered significant irregularities. His ongoing legal efforts aim to secure accountability from administrative and judicial authorities alike.
Chaturvedi’s family and legal team have consistently described these judicial delays and repeated recusals as part of a deliberate strategy to deny timely justice, raising urgent questions about the protection of whistleblowers in India.
