Recently, Chief Justice of India Surya Kant recused from hearing petitions challenging the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023, citing possible conflict of interest.
- Sanjiv Khanna had earlier also recused from the same matter, indicating a recurring institutional concern.
- The episode raises questions regarding judicial propriety, transparency, and consistency in recusal practices.
About Doctrine of Recusal
- Judicial recusal refers to the voluntary withdrawal of a judge from a case where there exists a possibility of bias or conflict of interest.
- Philosophical Basis: It flows from one of the oldest maxims of natural justice: nemo judex in causa sua — no one shall be a judge in their own cause.
- Key Principles of Recusal in India: The decision to recuse is based on the individual judge’s conscience and sense of judicial propriety.
- No party can compel it, and no statute in India codifies the standard, unlike in the United States where Section 455 of Title 28 of the United States Code requires a federal judge to disqualify themselves in any proceeding in which their impartiality might reasonably be questioned.
About Doctrine of Necessity
- The doctrine mandates that a judge must hear a case if no alternative forum is available, even in the presence of a conflict.
- It ensures that justice delivery is not obstructed due to universal disqualification.
|
Judicial Evolution in India
- Early Strict Rule: In Manak Lal v. Dr. Prem Chand (1957), the Supreme Court held that even pecuniary interest automatically disqualifies a judge from hearing a case.
- Modern Standard: In Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India (1987), the Court evolved the standard to include “reasonable apprehension of bias” rather than actual bias.
- In Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India (2015), the Court invoked the doctrine of necessity to refuse recusal.
Enroll now for UPSC Online Course
Recusal in NJAC Case (2015): Key Principles
Case Background: Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India
- The case examined the constitutional validity of the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Act, 2014.
- A recusal plea was raised against Justice J.S. Khehar on the ground of perceived institutional bias.
Justice J.S. Khehar’s Reasoning for Refusal to Recuse
Conflict Not Individual but Institutional
- Justice Khehar held that the alleged conflict of interest was common to all judges on the Bench.
- He stated that every judge had a future institutional stake in the outcome, whether under the Collegium system or the NJAC framework.
Recusal Would Not Eliminate Bias Concerns
- He emphasized that recusal by a single judge would not resolve the issue of bias since the same concern applied to all members of the Bench.
|
Concerns in Judicial Recusal
- Absence of Clear Guidelines: The lack of a codified legal framework governing judicial recusal results in decisions being based on individual judicial discretion, leading to inconsistency across cases.
- For Example: in Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India (2015), Justice J. S. Khehar refused to recuse despite potential conflict, whereas in recent challenges to the CEC appointment law, successive Chief Justices have chosen to recuse, reflecting divergent approaches.
- Scope for Bench Hunting: The discretionary nature of recusal can enable litigants to indirectly influence bench composition by seeking recusal of specific judges, thereby encouraging bench hunting.
- Lack of Transparency Undermining Public Trust: Since judges are not legally bound to provide detailed reasons for recusal, the absence of transparency can create suspicion regarding the motives behind such decisions.
- Tension between Judicial Independence and Accountability: Judicial recusal highlights an inherent tension between preserving judicial independence (freedom to decide without external pressure) and ensuring accountability (answerability for decisions).
Way Forward
- Need for Codified Guidelines: India should develop a clear statutory or judicially evolved framework laying down objective standards for recusal to reduce subjectivity and ensure uniformity.
- Clear Norms for Bench Constitution: Guidelines should be framed to regulate bench formation after recusal, especially in cases involving the Chief Justice as the Master of the Roster, to avoid perceptions of bias.
- Strengthening Judicial Ethics Framework: Adoption of a formal and enforceable judicial code of conduct can help institutionalize best practices regarding recusal and conflict of interest.
25 Mar 2026
.png)
Current Affairs
GS Foundation
Optional Course
Combo Courses
Degree Program
