In a dramatic turn of events at the Gauhati High Court, the President of the Gauhati High Court Bar Association (GHCBA), Senior Advocate Kamal Nayan Choudhury, has sought the recusal of Justice N Unni Krishnan Nair from adjudicating a contempt of court petition. The recusal was requested on the grounds that Justice Nair had “liked” an online post related to the very case he was hearing—raising serious concerns about judicial neutrality and perception of bias.
The Contempt Proceedings: Background
The controversy stems from two contempt of court petitions filed by Advocate General (AG) of Assam Devajit Saikia against three lawyers—Senior Advocate Kamal Nayan Choudhury, Advocate Pallavi Talukdar, and Senior Advocate Anil Kumar Bhattacharya. The case relates to public statements made against Justice Suman Shyam, a sitting judge of the High Court, following protests against the proposed relocation of the Gauhati High Court building.
The petitions allege that the lawyers made derogatory and defamatory remarks against Justice Shyam during media interviews, amounting to contempt of court and undermining the authority of the judiciary.
Allegation of Judicial Bias: Justice Nair’s Online Activity
On April 9, 2025, during a court proceeding, Bar President Choudhury pointed out that Justice Unni Krishnan Nair, one of the judges on the Bench hearing the contempt petitions, had liked an online post by Prag News, a local media outlet. The post, written in the Assamese vernacular, reportedly stated that a criminal case had been registered against a section of lawyers from the Bar Association.
Choudhury submitted:
“There is a post in this channel called Prag News. In vernacular it says … when we literally translate it into English – ‘criminal case has been registered against a section of the lawyers of the Association’. This is the post and this has been liked by none other than Hon’ble Justice Unni Krishnan Nair.”
He argued that a judge who engages with content casting aspersions on the accused lawyers, while simultaneously adjudicating the very matter, creates a perception of bias. Choudhury respectfully urged the judge to recuse himself to maintain the sanctity and impartiality of the proceedings.
Response from the Bench
Chief Justice Vijay Bishnoi, who is presiding over the Bench alongside Justice Nair, responded tersely to Choudhury’s submission:
“So?”
Choudhury replied:
“It is for your lordships. It is my duty to point out. Here is a news item which says some lawyers of the Association are being booked under criminal law. A judge who is adjudicating the issue… is liking it. Therefore, in my humble submission, his lordship should recuse from the case.”
Chief Justice Bishnoi took note of the objection and said that the Court would decide on the recusal request in due course while continuing with other matters.
Contempt Petitions: An Institutional Battle?
AG Devajit Saikia has maintained that the case is not about personal insult to Justice Suman Shyam but an institutional attack on the judiciary. He told the court that derogatory statements made during the protest undermined the integrity of the institution and warranted contempt action.
“This is an institutional attack. This is not an attack on Justice Suman Shyam as an individual,” Saikia emphasized.
He further argued that Bar President Choudhury failed in his duty by not taking disciplinary action against Talukdar and Bhattacharya, thereby becoming complicit in the contempt.
Defense by the Bar President
Choudhury has contested the allegations, asserting that AG Saikia’s contempt petition is fueled by personal animosity. He pointed out that the Bar Association had already distanced itself from the remarks made by individual members and that he cannot be held responsible for comments made by others in their personal capacity.
He also emphasized that filing contempt petitions over disagreement or protest amounts to suppressing dissent and free speech, especially when concerns are raised over matters affecting the legal fraternity—such as the proposed relocation of the court premises.
Justice Suman Shyam and the High Court’s Response
The controversy traces back to protests by GHCBA members last month over a proposed plan to relocate the Gauhati High Court from its existing location. Some lawyers, during media interactions, made critical remarks against Justice Suman Shyam, which led to widespread backlash.
On April 3, the Gauhati High Court issued an official press release condemning the comments, labeling them as verbal attacks on the judiciary. The High Court also questioned why the Bar Association failed to act against the concerned members.
While the Bar distanced itself from the remarks, the Court’s statement implied institutional responsibility, indirectly holding the leadership accountable.
Debate Over Judicial Recusal: Legal and Ethical Dimensions
The demand for recusal based on a judge’s social media engagement raises important questions about judicial ethics and digital conduct. While “liking” a post may appear innocuous, in sensitive legal matters—especially where the judge is hearing the case—such actions can erode public trust in judicial impartiality.
Under Indian jurisprudence, recusal is warranted when a reasonable apprehension of bias exists. Though not every expression of opinion amounts to bias, perception matters as much as actual prejudice. Choudhury’s objection, therefore, finds legal grounding in the principle of natural justice: “Nemo judex in causa sua”—no one should be a judge in their own cause.
Awaiting Judicial Decision
As of now, the Bench has reserved its order in the contempt proceedings. It is expected to issue directions soon, both on the core issue of contempt and on the plea for recusal.
The situation presents a complex intersection of freedom of expression, judicial integrity, and bar-bench relations. The legal fraternity across India is watching closely, as the outcome could set important precedents on judicial conduct in the digital age and how the judiciary responds to criticism and dissent from the bar.
Conclusion
The Gauhati High Court’s unfolding drama underscores the delicate balance between judicial authority and freedom of speech within the legal ecosystem. While judges must be protected from unwarranted attacks, lawyers too have the right to voice concerns on institutional matters. The call for recusal based on social media activity introduces a modern dilemma—how judicial conduct in the online realm influences perceptions of fairness in the courtroom.
As the court deliberates on the recusal plea and the contempt petitions, one thing remains clear: transparency, impartiality, and mutual respect between the bench and the bar are essential pillars of India’s judicial system.
