Justice Milind Jadhav Rejects Recusal in Tenancy Case, Fines Petitioner ₹50,000 for Raising Corruption Allegations Against Him

Justice Milind N. Jadhav of the Bombay High Court declined an application of his recusal, in a case of an age-old tenancy dispute and fined 50 thousand rupees on the petitioner, who made false allegations related to corruption and bribery against Justice. The case, comprising a number of writ petitions in 2016, presents a number of issues that are crucial to judicial integrity, fair procedures, and the process abuse in the courts. Judicial decision by the court has come as a vivid and clear answer to efforts to classify cases against judges to over compromise on the court by throwing accusatory charges which have no basis.

About the Case

This case is a writ petition based on three independent petitions of writ issued against Prabhavati Ramniklal Shah (deceased, succession represented by its legal heirs) and others in the year 2016 by Gaurishankar Govardhandas Todi (deceased, represented by his legal heirs) and others. These petitions are based on actions done as per Sections 70B, 43 and 32G of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. Justice Amit Borkar allowed the petitions on April 10, 2024. In the recusal case, the petitioner is derived as Kalpesh Rajendra Jain, who is the original Petitioner No. 2 just a buyer of one of the plots of Todi family.

The Chronology of the Events that resulted into the Recusal Application

The petitioner suffered in the case as the cases were admitted and later on listed to be heard. The petitioner felt aggrieved as the matters were to be heard in April, 2025 and May, 2025 in another court before a new judge, Justice Sandeep V. Marne. May 9, 2025; in the case there, this court, in passing on the motion presented by the counsel, acting in the behalf of the petitioners, noted that brief had been returned by him and an adjournment applied to be granted to obtain a new counsel. Although the court showed the disrespect to this change: later, an indulgence was also granted to them and the final hearing was postponed to June 20, 2025, with the provisional relief being effective only up to this date.

The respondents advocate moved a praecipe on July 3, 2025, on grounds of urgency due to the age of one of the contesting respondents at 87 years, when the petitions failed to be heard June, 20, 2025. As a result, the petitions came before his Honour Justice Milind N. Jadhavs bench on 7 th July 2025. The day in question, the advocate of the petitioners declined to argue, on the score that the action was unilist, and the petitioners were not consulted. The court postponed the case to 21 st July, 2025, so the advocate could prepare.

In 2025, on July, 21; the advocate of the petitioners was absent. Rather, the petitioner No. 2, Kalpesh Rajendra Jain, came in-person along with his father. He notified the court that on July 17, 2025 he had lodged a complaint against both of these justices, Justice Jadhav and Justice Marne before the Chief Justice of India and the Chief Justice of Bombay High Court stating they were to be prosecuted on criminal charges on serious grounds of bribery and corruption. Thereafter an application to adjourn the thing until they could procure a new lawyer. The court, even as it gave them a final chance to file a new counsel and adjourned the case until August 4 2025 also ordered the Registrar General to initiate appropriate action in accordance with the law against Kalpesh Rajendra Jain and father Rajendra Hamirmal Jain based upon the allegations in their complaint. Only two weeks was extended to the continuation of the interim relief.

The Recusant Rejection

On July 30, 2025, the interim application to recuse was filed by Petitioner No. 2 and sought the issuance of the order of Not Before Me and transferring the case to a different court. The application was premised on five grounds with the first one being the complaint dated July 17, 2025.

On the five grounds of recusal, Justice Jadhav held and opined them as being not justified. The first was the violation in the principles of natural justice, where the petitioner claimed that by the out-of-turn listing of the cases without his knowledge, the petitioner was denied a fair hearing. The court rejected this explanation by stating that these issues were listed on June 20, 2025 following an order and not by the request of the respondents. The court further demystified that there is always the discretion of the court to list a matter and in no circumstances were the petitioners denied a hearing but rather they were not willing to argue.

The second and the most significant basis was that of the presogo; a claim of a reasonable apprehension of bias on the basis that there was a pending complaint against the court and the former judge of bribery and corruption. This complaint was characterized by the court since it has had severe, yet unfounded, accusations that lacked details. The judgment is also verbatim quoting complaint which alleges the judges of having received bribes, driven by corruption and their wish to have them prosecuted criminally. The court said that these allegations were prima facie scurrilous. Justice Jadhav pointed out that a complaint and recusal, both used only to obtain recusal to avoid trial, is not a valid reason for a judge to recuse himself or herself in a case. He observed that permitting such tactics would give a “handy mechanism” to litigants to judge-shop, and arbitrarily decide which judges would hear their case.

The ruling by the court is important in highlighting a very important principle that a litigant cannot contrive a basis of recusal by urging an application against the judge whose case he has. This is an attempt to interfere with the justice system to manipulate the judicial system. Such decisive position of the court shows its determination to defend the judicial system integrity against such vexatious and contumacious conduct. Fine of 50,000 was considered to prevent such behaviour in future and make sure that litigants will never attempt to misuse their right to apply to the court with frivolous applications using serious, although not substantiated, allegations.