Judicial Recusal in India: Principles, Doctrine of Necessity & Key Cases

29 Apr 2026

Recently, Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma of the Delhi High Court refused to recuse herself from hearing the Delhi liquor policy case — Central Bureau Of Investigation vs Kuldeep Singh and Ors. (April 20, 2026) — involving the former Chief Minister of Delhi, Arvind Kejriwal, and others

UPSC Online Classes

Recusal Plea Filed By: The plea was filed by Arvind Kejriwal, who appeared in person before the Delhi High Court.
Grounds for Seeking Recusal:
- The petitioner cited prior adverse observations made by the judge in earlier proceedings of the same case.
- He alleged ideological proximity, referring to the judge’s participation in events organised by Akhil Bharatiya Adhivakta Parishad.
- It was pointed out that the judge’s children were empanelled as government lawyers, raising concerns of potential conflict of interest.
Core Argument:
- The plea was based on the principle of “reasonable apprehension of bias”, arguing that these factors could create a perception of partiality in the mind of a fair observer.
Court’s Decision:
- Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma refused to recuse herself, holding that the allegations were unfounded.
- The Court emphasized the presumption of judicial impartiality and rejected the contention that the circumstances warranted recusal.

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.

UPSC Coaching Classes

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).

Click to Know UPSC Coaching Centres in India

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.

Check Out UPSC CSE Books

Visit PW Store