Recusal of Judges
24 Mar 2026
Recusal of Judges
Context: Chief Justice of India Surya Kant on Friday recused himself from hearing a batch of petitions challenging the validity of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023.
What is judicial recusal?
- Judicial recusal, also known as disqualification, refers to the voluntary or mandatory withdrawal of a judge from participating in a case due to circumstances that could raise doubts about their impartiality. Recusal can occur at any stage of proceedings, from preliminary hearings to final adjudication.
- In India, recusal is governed by judicial propriety rather than a codified statutory framework. The practice draws from:
- Constitutional principles: Article 145(2)of the Constitution read with Order VI of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, provides that cases shall be heard by a bench constituted by the Chief Justice, but does not explicitly codify recusal grounds.
- Precedent-based practice: The Supreme Court in Ranjan Dwivedi vs Union of India (2018)laid down guidelines, stating that recusal must be based on reasonable apprehension of bias rather than mere suspicion. The test is whether a "fair-minded and informed observer" would conclude there was a real possibility of bias.
- Forms of recusal: Recusal can be either:
- Suo motu (voluntary): When a judge withdraws on their own accord, as CJI Kant did.
- By motion (party-initiated): When a party files an application seeking a judge's recusal, which the judge then decides upon.
What are ethical dilemmas associated with it?
- The duty to sit vs duty to recuse: In Ranjit Thakur vs Union of India (1987), the Supreme Court noted that judges must not recuse on frivolous grounds, as that would amount to abdication of duty.
- Absence of clear guidelines: India lacks a comprehensive recusal statute. The decision to recuse rests entirely with the individual judge, leading to inconsistency.
- Tactical recusal requests: Parties may file recusal motions strategically to delay proceedings or to secure a bench perceived as more favorable. While judges can dismiss such motions, repeated recusal requests can disrupt judicial timelines.
- Succession implications: The current case highlights a unique dilemma: judges in line to become Chief Justice may face questions about their impartiality when hearing matters that affect the office they are to assume.
- Institutional signaling: Recusal in politically sensitive cases can sometimes be interpreted as avoidance of difficult constitutional questions. Conversely, refusal to recuse in such matters can invite accusations of overreach.
- Precedent on CJI recusal: In Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association vs Union of India, then CJI H L Dattu recused himself after the collegium, of which he was a part, was directly challenged. However, no uniform practice exists, leaving the ethical calculus to individual judicial conscience.
Subscribe to our Youtube Channel for more Valuable Content – TheStudyias
Download the App to Subscribe to our Courses – Thestudyias
The Source’s Authority and Ownership of the Article is Claimed By THE STUDY IAS BY MANIKANT SINGH
Stay updated with the most relevant topics shaping the world around you.
Explore more articles below to strengthen your understanding and build daily consistency in current affairs.