Answer

Introduction 

Judicial recusal in India refers to a judge withdrawing from a case due to potential bias or conflict of interest. While rooted in legal principles, it is primarily an ethical safeguard to uphold impartiality and public confidence in the judiciary.

Principles governing judicial recusal in India

• Rule against Bias: A judge must not adjudicate a matter where there is real likelihood or reasonable apprehension of bias, ensuring fairness in decision-making.
• Reasonable Apprehension of Bias Test: Recusal is guided by whether a fair-minded observer would perceive bias, as highlighted in cases like State of West Bengal v. Shivananda Pathak, prioritising public perception over subjective intent.
• Judicial Conscience and Self-Regulation: Recusal largely depends on the judge’s own ethical discretion, as there is no rigid statutory framework, making integrity and moral judgment central.
• Duty to Sit vs Duty to Recuse: Courts have emphasised that judges must balance avoiding bias with their obligation not to evade cases without valid reasons, preventing forum shopping or bench hunting.

Need for codification of recusal rules

Conclusion

Judicial recusal is essential to maintain fairness and trust in the judiciary. While clear rules can improve transparency, too much rigidity may harm judicial independence. Therefore, a balanced approach combining ethical judgment with broad guidelines is the most suitable way forward.

DOWNLOAD PDF