Bilaspur : In a significant move to uphold the sanctity of the courtroom, the High Court of Chhattisgarh has clarified that its recent administrative measures are designed to protect the judicial process from manipulation. A Division Bench, comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, emphasized that a circular issued to curb “Bench hunting” serves as a protective caution rather than a mandate that interferes with a judge’s independence.
Protecting the Sanctity of the Bench
The clarification arose after a coordinate Bench expressed concerns that a circular dated April 16, 2026, might constitute “interference” in court functioning. Addressing these concerns on the administrative side, Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha noted that the directive was born out of a necessity to counter recent attempts by litigants to influence which Bench hears their cases—a practice known as “Bench hunting”. The Court articulated that the circular is intended to ensure the Court does not inadvertently become a tool for litigants with vested interests, serving as a “note of caution” to prevent Benches from being misled in matters of appearance and to maintain the highest standards of judicial discipline and propriety.
Autonomy and Judicial Discretion
Crucially, the High Court reaffirmed the absolute independence of its judges. The Court clarified that the circular does not force a recusal; instead, every Bench remains at liberty to take an appropriate decision, including recusal, in its judicial discretion based on the merits of the situation. This ensures that while administrative safeguards are in place, the core judicial power to decide on one’s own participation in a case remains untouched.
“The Circular… is intended solely to ensure that the Court/Bench does not inadvertently become a tool in the hands of the litigants seeking to advance vested interests and to avoid possibility of Bench hunting.” — High Court of Chhattisgarh
Case Progression: Ayushi Ginoria v. Sumit Agrawal
The legal discussion surfaced during the proceedings of a matrimonial appeal, filed as FA(MAT) No. 287 of 2025. Following the recusal of a member of the previous Bench and the subsequent administrative clarification, the case was reassigned to Division Bench-I. During the hearing on April 29, 2026, Senior Advocate Manoj Paranjpe, representing the appellant, informed the Court that while the paper book was ready, certain technical defects noted by the Registry needed to be rectified. The Court accepted the submission and granted the appellant one week to submit the corrected paper book. To ensure the matter proceeds efficiently, the Bench has scheduled the final hearing for June 18, 2026.