Syllabus: GS2/Polity and Governance
Context
- Recently, a Supreme Court judge recused from a bail case after many adjournments without giving an explanation.
Recusal
- Recusal means a judge voluntarily withdrawing from hearing a case when there is a chance of bias or conflict of interest.
- The main purpose is to ensure:
- Judges remain independent and impartial.
- The public has confidence in the fairness of justice.
- It is based on the principle: “Justice must not only be done, but must also be seen to be done.”
- In India, there are no formal rules governing recusals by judges. Judges who choose to opt out of a case can do so without giving any reason.
Position in Indian Law
- Indian courts recognize “reasonable likelihood of bias” as the standard.
- There are two kinds of recusals — automatic recusal where a judge himself withdraws from the case, or when a party raises a plea for recusal highlighting the possibility of bias or personal interest of the judge in the case.
- The decision to recuse rests solely on the conscience and discretion of the judge and no party can compel a judge to withdraw from a case.
- If a judge recuses himself, the case is listed before the Chief Justice for allotment to an alternate Bench.
Various Interpretations of Supreme Court
- India has no codified rules governing recusals, although several Supreme Court judgments have dealt with the issue.
- Important cases:
- Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India (1987): Court said even a “reasonable apprehension of bias” is enough for recusal.
- State of West Bengal v. Shivananda Pathak (1998): Bias destroys fairness; justice becomes meaningless if bias is present.
- Formulating a more definite rule in Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India (2015), the Court observed that where a judge has a pecuniary interest, no further inquiry is needed as to whether there was a ‘real danger’ or ‘reasonable suspicion’ of bias.
| Recusal in Global Jurisdictions – The United States has a well-defined law on recusals — Title 28 of the U.S. Code details the grounds for ‘disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge’. 1. This specifies three grounds for recusal— financial or corporate interest, a case in which the judge was a material witness or a lawyer, and a relationship to a party. – The United Kingdom’s law on judicial recusals evolved through judicial pronouncements. 1. In the landmark case of R v. Gough, the ‘real danger’ test was adopted as the applicable standard based one of which recusal orders need to be passed. 2. The test entailed disqualification solely on substantive and tangible evidence which conclusively highlights the presence of judicial bias and prejudice. |
Issues in the Current System
- No formal rules: Judges can recuse without giving any explanation.
- Possibility of misuse:
- Lawyers or parties may pressure judges to recuse to get a “favourable bench”.
- Recusals may be used as a tactic to delay cases.
- Public distrust: If reasons are not given, people suspect hidden bias or external pressure.
- Delays in justice: Sudden recusals after many adjournments waste court’s time and harm litigants.
Recommendations
- Frame codified rules: India should have a written law or set of guidelines on recusals.
- Judges should record reasons: Even short reasons improve transparency and trust.
- Uniform standards: Clear categories such as financial conflict, family ties, political pressure, or prior professional links.
- Committee approach: Rules should be framed by a committee of judges and lawyers to ensure balance.
Conclusion
- Recusal is important to maintain judicial fairness and credibility.
- But in India, uncodified rules, lack of transparency, and frequent unexplained recusals have weakened the purpose.
- Clear written rules, and balance between independence and accountability is necessary to maintain judicial fairness.
Source: TH
Previous article
News In Short – 5 September, 2025
