Recusal in Indian Judiciary: Delhi HC Case, Bias Standards & Legal Principles

29 Apr 2026

The discussion centers on the Delhi Liquor Policy Case (CBI vs. Kuldeep Singh & Others), where the accused, former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, sought the recusal of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma. Kejriwal filed a petition to transfer the case to another bench, arguing that a fair trial was not expected under the current bench.

Best Online Coaching for UPSC

About Recusal

It occurs when a judge withdraws from a case due to a conflict of interest, ensuring that “justice is not only done but seen to be done”.
It is rooted in the principle of Natural Justice—specifically Nemo judex in causa sua (no one should be a judge in their own cause).

Key Concepts

Reasonable Apprehension of Bias: The standard that if a party has a logical, even if small, doubt that a judge might not be fair, it serves as a ground for recusal.
Doctrine of Necessity: A rare exception where a judge must hear a case despite a potential conflict because no other alternative judge or forum is available to ensure the administration of justice.
Appearance of Impropriety: The idea that justice must not only be done but must also be seen to be done; any perception of a lack of integrity can undermine public trust.

Kejriwal raised four primary arguments for the recusal

Adverse Orders: The judge had previously made statements or issued orders against him in the same case.
Ideological Bias: Allegations that the judge participates in the Akhil Bhartiya Advokta Parishad, an organization associated with the ruling BJP.
Conflict of Interest: It was alleged that the judge’s children are panel advocates who receive cases from the Solicitor General, who is the same individual representing the CBI against Kejriwal.
Political Statements: Comments made by the Home Minister regarding the case’s progress in the High Court created a perception that a specific outcome was predetermined.

Landmark Cases and Precedents

The sources highlight several domestic and international precedents regarding judicial conduct and recusal:

Global Precedents

Lord Bowen’s / Caesar’s Wife Principle: If there is any doubt regarding a judge’s impartiality, they should distance themselves from the case to maintain an image “above suspicion”.
R vs. Sussex Justices (1923 – UK): Established the classic legal maxim that “justice should not only be done but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done”.
Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct (2002): A global standard outlining six core values: Independence, Impartiality, Integrity, Propriety, Equality, and Competence & Diligence.

UPSC Online Coaching

Indian Landmark Cases

Ranjit Thakur vs. Union of India (1987): The Supreme Court emphasized that judges must check their own biases to avoid creating concerns for the entire judiciary.
PK Ghosh vs. JG Rajput (1995): Ruled that if a litigant raises a “reasonable doubt” with logic, the judge should recuse to maintain public trust.
State of Punjab vs. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar (2011): Held that an “appearance of bias” is sufficient for recusal and does not require absolute proof.
Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association vs. Union of India (2015 – NJAC Case): Upheld the Bangalore Principles; although the judges heard the case under the “Doctrine of Necessity” because it involved the appointment of the judiciary itself, the principles of impartiality remained paramount.
Indore Development Authority vs. Manohar Lal (2019): A rare case where Justice Arun Mishra did not recuse, citing a “duty to sit” when the demand for recusal was deemed a tactic to choose a favorable bench.

Analysis of the Delhi High Court’s Decision

The writer critiques the Delhi High Court for failing the “recusal test”. Despite the arguments presented, Justice Sharma issued a “self-defensive judgment” and refused to recuse.

Key points of analysis include

Violation of Natural Justice: By not withdrawing despite a personal conflict (via the children’s professional connection to the Solicitor General), the ruling is seen as a violation of natural justice.
Weak Legal Standards: The judge used a “straw man argument,” suggesting that children of judges have a right to practice law, which the writer argues misses the specific point about the direct professional link to the prosecutor in this case.
Public Perception vs. Legal Proof: While there might not be a codified law for recusal, the ethical standard requires a judge to step back if a party shows a “reasonable apprehension” of bias, a standard the court reportedly failed to meet here.

Click to Know UPSC Coaching Centres in India

Conclusion

Judicial recusal in India is not codified by the Constitution or any specific law; it remains a decision based purely on legal ethics and judicial discretion.
The sources conclude that for a democracy to function, there must be social equality and public trust in the judiciary.
Failure to recuse in the face of logical doubts, as seen in the Delhi case, risks diminishing that trust and undermines the “appearance of impartiality” necessary for a fair justice system.