{"id":53283,"date":"2025-09-06T18:50:32","date_gmt":"2025-09-06T13:20:32","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.nextias.com\/ca\/?p=53283"},"modified":"2025-09-06T18:51:32","modified_gmt":"2025-09-06T13:21:32","slug":"recusals-by-judges-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.nextias.com\/ca\/current-affairs\/06-09-2025\/recusals-by-judges-2","title":{"rendered":"Recusals By Judges"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p><strong>Syllabus: GS2\/Polity and Governance<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Context<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Recently, a Supreme Court judge <strong>recused from a bail case<\/strong> after many adjournments without giving an explanation.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Recusal<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li><strong>Recusal <\/strong>means<strong> a judge voluntarily withdrawing from hearing a case<\/strong> when there is a <strong>chance of bias or conflict of interest.<\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>The main purpose is to ensure:<\/strong>\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Judges remain independent and impartial.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The public has confidence in the fairness of justice.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>It is based on the principle: <\/strong>\u201cJustice must not only be done, but must also be seen to be done.\u201d<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>In India,<strong> there are no formal rules governing recusals by judges<\/strong>. Judges who choose to opt out of a case <strong>can do so without giving any reason.<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Position in Indian Law<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Indian courts recognize <strong>\u201creasonable likelihood of bias\u201d <\/strong>as the standard.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>There are two kinds of recusals <\/strong>\u2014 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.\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li><strong>The decision to recuse rests solely <\/strong>on the conscience and discretion of the <strong>judge <\/strong>and <strong>no party can compel a judge<\/strong> to withdraw from a case.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>If a judge recuses himself, the case is listed before the <strong>Chief Justice for allotment to an alternate Bench.\u00a0<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Various Interpretations of Supreme Court<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li><strong>India has no codified rules governing recusals,<\/strong> although several Supreme Court judgments have dealt with the issue.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Important cases:<\/strong>\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li><strong>Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India (1987):<\/strong> Court said even a \u201creasonable apprehension of bias\u201d is enough for recusal.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>State of West Bengal v. Shivananda Pathak (1998): <\/strong>Bias destroys fairness; justice becomes meaningless if bias is present.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Formulating a more definite rule in Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India (2015)<\/strong>, the Court observed that where a judge has a pecuniary interest, no further inquiry is needed as to whether there was a \u2018real danger\u2019 or \u2018reasonable suspicion\u2019 of bias.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-background\" style=\"background-color:#ebecf0\"><tbody><tr><td><strong>Recusal in Global Jurisdictions<\/strong><br>&#8211; <strong>The United States<\/strong> has a well-defined law on recusals \u2014 Title 28 of the U.S. Code details the grounds for \u2018disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge\u2019.\u00a0<br>1. This specifies three grounds for recusal\u2014 financial or corporate interest, a case in which the judge was a material witness or a lawyer, and a relationship to a party.<br>&#8211; <strong>The United Kingdom\u2019s law<\/strong> <strong>on judicial recusals<\/strong> evolved through judicial pronouncements.\u00a0<br>1. In the landmark case of R v. Gough, the \u2018real danger\u2019 test was adopted as the applicable standard based one of which recusal orders need to be passed.\u00a0<br>2. The test entailed disqualification solely on substantive and tangible evidence which conclusively highlights the presence of judicial bias and prejudice.<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Issues in the Current System<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li><strong>No formal rules:<\/strong> Judges can recuse without giving any explanation.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Possibility of misuse:<\/strong>\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Lawyers or parties may pressure judges to recuse to get a \u201cfavourable bench\u201d.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Recusals may be used as a tactic to delay cases.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Public distrust: <\/strong>If reasons are not given, people suspect hidden bias or external pressure.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Delays in justice: <\/strong>Sudden recusals after many adjournments waste court\u2019s time and harm litigants.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Recommendations<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li><strong>Frame codified rules:<\/strong> India should have a written law or set of guidelines on recusals.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Judges should record reasons:<\/strong> Even short reasons improve transparency and trust.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Uniform standards:<\/strong> Clear categories such as financial conflict, family ties, political pressure, or prior professional links.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Committee approach: <\/strong>Rules should be framed by a committee of judges and lawyers to ensure balance.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Conclusion<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Recusal is important to maintain judicial fairness and credibility.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>But in India, uncodified rules, lack of transparency, and frequent unexplained recusals have weakened the purpose.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Clear written rules, and balance between independence and accountability is necessary to maintain judicial fairness.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Source: <\/strong><a href=\"https:\/\/epaper.thehindu.com\/ccidist-ws\/th\/th_international\/issues\/146925\/OPS\/GD3ES0BTA.1+GSRES3ABI.1.html\" rel=\"nofollow noopener\" target=\"_blank\"><strong>TH<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<h3><strong>Context<\/strong><\/h3>\n<li class=\"ms-5\">Recently, a Supreme Court judge recused from a bail case after many adjournments without giving an explanation.<\/li>\n<p><\/p>\n<h3><strong>Recusal<\/strong><\/h3>\n<li class=\"ms-5\">Recusal means a judge voluntarily withdrawing from hearing a case when there is a chance of bias or conflict of interest.<\/li>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nextias.com\/ca\/current-affairs\/06-09-2025\/recusals-by-judges-2\" class=\"btn btn-primary btn-sm float-end\">Read\u00a0More<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":15,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-53283","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-current-affairs"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nextias.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/53283","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nextias.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nextias.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.nextias.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/15"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.nextias.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=53283"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.nextias.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/53283\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":53319,"href":"https:\/\/www.nextias.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/53283\/revisions\/53319"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nextias.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=53283"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.nextias.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=53283"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.nextias.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=53283"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}