Supreme Court Flags Judge Who Passed Orders in Matter Involving Former Client, Directs Chief Justice to Reassign
A Division Bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and Sanjeev Sachdeva found that a High Court judge sat on a case involving land he had previously argued over as counsel.
The Supreme Court on 27 July 2026 disposed of a set of special leave petitions filed by Prateek Resorts and Builders Private Limited, raising a pointed concern about judicial propriety at the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital. The Court found that the learned Judge who passed five interim orders between May and July 2026 had previously appeared as counsel for Prateek Resorts in a related writ petition — WPMS No. 1478/2013 — concerning the very same land that formed the subject matter of the enquiry before that Judge. The Supreme Court directed that the order be communicated to the Chief Justice of the High Court for reassignment and, if warranted, for initiation of a public interest litigation.
How the Matter Reached the Supreme Court
The challenge before the Supreme Court was to five interim orders dated 20 May 2026, 21 May 2026, 1 June 2026, 17 June 2026, and 20 July 2026 passed in Criminal Writ Petition No. 762/2026 before the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital.
Two criminal writ petitions were pending before the same learned Judge: Criminal Writ Petition Nos. 1431/2026 and 762/2026. Prateek Resorts had separately filed an application before the learned Judge seeking to be impleaded in those proceedings, and that application was still pending consideration when the impugned interim orders were passed.
The Supreme Court was informed that the learned Judge had, in an earlier proceeding — WPMS No. 1478/2013 — appeared as counsel for Prateek Resorts and Builders Private Limited. That earlier case involved the same land which was now the subject matter of the enquiry before the learned Judge, and in relation to which the five impugned interim orders had been passed.
The Court's Finding on Judicial Propriety
The Court was unequivocal. Having appeared as counsel for a party in a related matter concerning the same land, the learned Judge ought not to have entertained the writ petitions or passed orders in the matter. The Court invoked the foundational principle: “justice must not only be done but must also be seen to be done.”
The Court made clear that the concern applied whether the orders went in favour of or against the former client. Passing orders either way, against a private entity that was once a client, does not further the cause of apparent justice.
A second, distinct concern was also recorded. The two writ petitions before the learned Judge were on altogether different issues. The Court found that the learned Judge had enlarged the scope of those writ petitions through the impugned interim orders, going beyond what the writ petitions themselves sought to address. Even assuming the exercise was undertaken with good intentions, it was not the proper course in petitions that had nothing to do with the issues being addressed by the interim orders.
The Court pointed out the correct path that ought to have been followed. If the learned Judge believed the matter warranted attention in the public interest, the appropriate steps would have been to place it before the Public Interest Litigation Committee of the High Court, or to refer it to the Chief Justice of the High Court for necessary measures to be taken in accordance with due procedure.
Why the Interim Orders Were Left Intact
Despite recording these concerns, the Court declined to set aside the existing interim orders. The reason was practical: the orders were already operative, and undertakings had been given by parties with regard to not cutting down trees. Disturbing those undertakings at this stage was not considered appropriate.
The Court left all questions of fact and law open for the appropriate Bench of the High Court to examine afresh. That Bench, when the matter comes before it, will be free to go into every aspect — including the validity of the impugned interim orders themselves.
Direction to the Chief Justice of Uttarakhand High Court
The Supreme Court directed that its order be communicated to the Chief Justice of the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital. The Chief Justice is to take suitable steps in two respects: first, for the listing of Criminal Writ Petition Nos. 762/2026 and 1431/2026 before an appropriate Bench; and second, for the initiation of a public interest litigation, if the Chief Justice considers it warranted.
With those directions, the special leave petitions were disposed of. All pending applications also stood disposed of accordingly.
Outcome
The special leave petitions filed by Prateek Resorts and Builders Private Limited were disposed of on 27 July 2026. The five impugned interim orders of the High Court of Uttarakhand were not set aside; the undertakings regarding tree-cutting remain operative. The matter is to be listed before a fresh Bench of the High Court as directed by the Chief Justice of Uttarakhand. The Supreme Court's order in Prateek Resorts and Builders Private Limited v. Puneet Agrawal & Ors. is to be communicated to the Chief Justice of the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital for further action.