Can a Judge Preside Over a Case Involving a Former Client? Supreme Court Weighs In

The Supreme Court recently answered the question “Can a Judge Preside Over a Case Involving a Former Client?”. The Apex Court held that a judge of the Uttarakhand High Court ought not to have entertained and passed orders in a matter where the judge had earlier appeared as counsel for one of the parties in a related case involving the same land. The order was passed on 27th July 2026 by a bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and Sanjeev Sachdeva in Prateek Resorts and Builders Private Limited v. Puneet Agrawal.  

Background 

The special leave petitions challenged interim orders passed by a Uttarakhand High Court Judge in a Criminal Writ Petition. The Supreme Court noted that two writ petitions were pending before the same Judge. It further noted that the Judge had, in an earlier capacity, appeared as counsel for Prateek Resorts & Builders Private Limited. The Court highlighted that the land involved in that earlier case was the same land that was the subject matter of the enquiry before the Judge in the present proceedings, in relation to which the impugned interim orders were passed. The Court also recorded that Prateek Resorts & Builders Private Limited had filed an application before the Judge seeking to be impleaded in the matter, and that this application was still pending consideration. 

Can a Judge Preside Over a Case Involving a Former Client? 

The Supreme Court held that, in the interest of judicial propriety, the Judge ought not to have entertained and passed orders in the matter. The Bench in this order stated that justice must not only be done but must also be seen to be done, and that passing orders either in favour of or against a former client (a private entity), does not further that cause. 

Scope of the Writ Petitions  

The Supreme Court further observed that the writ petitions filed before the Judge concerned altogether different issues, and that the scope of those petitions had been enlarged by the Judge through the impugned interim orders. It held that, even if this exercise was undertaken with the best of intentions, it was not proper for the Judge to do so in writ petitions that had nothing to do with the issues sought to be addressed. 

In the words of the Court, “In the event the learned Judge was of the opinion that this was a matter that required to be espoused in the cause of public interest, appropriate steps could have been taken by placing the matter before the Public Interest Litigation Committee constituted in the High Court or by referring the matter to the Hon’ble The Chief Justice of the High Court for necessary measures to be taken in accordance with due procedure.” 

Relief Declined  

Despite such findings, the Supreme Court declined to interfere with the orders or undertakings presently in force. It noted that the Uttarakhand High Court Judge had already passed certain orders that were holding the field, and that undertakings had also been given with regard to not cutting down trees. The Apex Court held that it was for the appropriate High Court Bench to go into all aspects based on facts and law, including the validity of the orders impugned in the present petitions.  

Appearances 

For the petitioner, the matter was argued by Senior Advocate Mukta Gupta, along with Advocate-on-Record Rahul Jain and advocates Lalit Mohini Bhat, Hetu Arora Sethi, Siddarth Agarwal, Sanidhya Kumar, Kanak Bathwal, Nitya Gupta, and Vittal Bala Subrahmanyam.  

For the respondents, the matter was argued by advocates Vanshaja Shukla, Deepti Arya, and Narayan Har Gupta, along with Advocate-on-Record Samapika Biswal, advocates Anmol Sandhu, Swati Arya, and Mehak Kumar, and Advocate-on-Record Vijay Kasana.