Why have 17 judges stepped aside from Sanjiv Chaturvedi cases since 2013? The full story

New Delhi: Seventeen judicial officers have recused themselves over the years from cases involving Uttarakhand-cadre Indian Forest Service (IFS) officer Sanjiv Chaturvedi, with the latest instance reported on September 21.

The recusals span the Supreme Court, Uttarakhand High Court, Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) and the district judiciary. They include two former Supreme Court judges, four Uttarakhand High Court judges, nine CAT members and two district court judges.

The latest recusal was by Rajveer Singh Verma, a judicial member of the CAT's Delhi Bench. He stepped aside while hearing Chaturvedi's petition challenging a November 2021 Uttarakhand government order concerning the appraisal-report channel for IFS officers.

The September 21 order simply recorded that after hearing the matter for some time, Verma recused himself. The case has been directed to be placed before another appropriate bench.

So, who is Sanjiv Chaturvedi, and why have so many judicial officers recused themselves from matters involving him?

Who is Sanjiv Chaturvedi?

Sanjiv Chaturvedi is a 2002-batch IFS officer of the Uttarakhand cadre who came into prominence after raising allegations of corruption and irregularities during his posting in Haryana.

His legal battles have subsequently covered a range of service-related issues, including postings, deputation, performance appraisal, disciplinary proceedings and allegations of official retaliation.

Chaturvedi also served as Director (Vigilance) at AIIMS, New Delhi, between 2012 and 2016, where he investigated a large number of alleged corruption cases. He was awarded the Ramon Magsaysay Award in 2015 for his work in exposing corruption in public offices.
Also read | Ganga Expressway flooded after heavy rain; locals seen fishing on submerged stretch

What started the legal battle?

A major part of Chaturvedi's litigation traces back to his tenure in the Haryana Forest Department.

He had alleged corruption and irregularities involving senior officials and sought an independent CBI investigation. A government-constituted inquiry committee examined his allegations and, according to reports, found that he had faced harassment.

The matter was subsequently referred to the Central Vigilance Commission and then to the CBI. The CBI reportedly said in a 2011 report that the allegations were worthy of an independent probe. The dispute over a CBI investigation eventually led to prolonged litigation.

When did the recusals begin?

The first recorded recusal in this chain dates back to November 2013.

Then-Supreme Court judge Justice Ranjan Gogoi stepped aside from hearing Chaturvedi's petition seeking a CBI probe into allegations of corruption and harassment arising from his Haryana tenure.

In August 2016, then Supreme Court judge Justice U.U. Lalit also recused himself from the matter. Neither instance, as reported, established a common explanation for the subsequent recusals.

The cases later moved across several judicial forums.

At the CAT, former chairman Justice L. Narasimha Reddy recused himself in 2019, while Justice R.N. Singh recused himself in 2021. Other CAT members subsequently stepped aside from cases concerning Chaturvedi's service and appraisal-related disputes.

More recusals in Uttarakhand High Court

The Uttarakhand High Court has also seen several recusals in matters involving Chaturvedi.

In May 2023, Justice Rakesh Thapliyal recused himself from a matter concerning documents related to Chaturvedi's anti-corruption investigations during his AIIMS tenure.

Justice Manoj Tiwari stepped aside in February 2024 from a petition seeking documents from the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet concerning Chaturvedi's central deputation.

In September and October 2025, Justices Alok Verma and Ravindra Maithani recused themselves from a contempt petition filed by Chaturvedi against CAT members and its registry. The petition alleged wilful non-compliance with a High Court stay order.
Also read | Vijay govt withdraws Law and Order RTI exemption after backlash: What did it mean?

Why did the judges recuse themselves?

There is no single publicly established reason for all 17 recusals.

This is an important distinction because recusal does not, by itself, establish wrongdoing, bias or a conflict of interest involving either the judge or the litigant.

In several of the cases, the orders simply state that the judge or judicial member has recused themselves, without giving a reason. The latest CAT order is one such example.

There have, however, been instances where a specific reason was recorded.

In April 2025, Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Neha Kushwaha recused herself from a defamation case filed by Chaturvedi against a CAT member, citing previous family relations with another CAT member.

The different circumstances across individual cases therefore do not establish that all 17 recusals were prompted by the same concern.

What is the latest case about?

The latest matter concerns Chaturvedi's challenge to a November 2021 Uttarakhand government order relating to the Appraisal Report Channel for IFS officers.

The case was being heard by the CAT Delhi Bench when Rajveer Singh Verma recused himself on September 21. The order did not give a specific reason and directed the registry to place the matter before an appropriate bench.

The case is part of a much wider series of legal proceedings involving Chaturvedi's service record, deputation, performance appraisals and his earlier allegations of corruption and official retaliation.

What does the 17-recusal figure mean?

The figure reflects recusals recorded across different cases and forums over more than a decade. It does not mean that all 17 judicial officers recused themselves from one single case.

The matters have involved different issues and different stages of Chaturvedi's long-running legal disputes.

What remains notable is the spread of the recusals across the Supreme Court, High Court, CAT and district judiciary. At the same time, the available orders do not provide a common explanation for the entire sequence.

For now, the latest petition will be heard by a different CAT bench after Verma's withdrawal.