Recusal by Judges

In News

  • Recently, the Supreme Court judge recused herself from hearing a writ petition filed by Bilkis Bano against a Gujarat government decision to prematurely release 11 men sentenced to life imprisonment for gang-raping her during the 2002 riots.

About Judge Recusal

  • When there is a conflict of interest, a judge can withdraw from hearing a case to prevent creating a perception that she carried a bias while deciding the case.
    • For example, if the case pertains to a company in which the judge holds stakes, the apprehension would seem reasonable.
  • Similarly, if the judge has, in the past, appeared for one of the parties involved in a case, the call for recusal may seem right.
  • Another instance for recusal is when an appeal is filed in the Supreme Court against a judgement of a High Court that may have been delivered by the Supreme Court judge when she was in the High Court.
  • This practice stems from the cardinal principle of due process of law that nobody can be a judge in her case. 
    • Any interest or conflict of interest would be a ground to withdraw from a case since a judge must act fair.
  • There have also been several cases where judges have refused to withdraw from a case.
    • For instance, in 2019, Justice Arun Mishra had controversially refused to recuse himself from a Constitution Bench set up to re-examine a judgement he had delivered previously, despite several requests from the parties. 
    • In the Ayodhya-Ramjanmabhoomi case, Justice U U Lalit recused himself from the Constitution Bench after parties brought to his attention that he had appeared as a lawyer in a criminal case relating to the case.

 Process For Recusal

  • Once a request is made for recusal, the decision to recuse or not rests with the judge.
  • While there are some instances where judges have recused even if they do not see a conflict but only because such apprehension was cast.

Causes of Recusal

  • The decision to recuse generally comes from the judge themself as it rests on the conscience and discretion of the judge to disclose any potential conflict of interest. 
  • Conflict of interest could be:
    • Judge’s Interest in the subject matter, or relationship with someone who is interested in it;
    • Judge’s Background or experience, such as the judge’s prior work as a lawyer;
    • Judge’s Personal knowledge about the parties or the facts of the case;
    • Judge’s Ex parte communications with lawyers or non-lawyers;
    • Judge’s Rulings, comments or conduct;
  • In some circumstances, lawyers or parties in the case bring it up before the judge.
    • If a judge recuses, the case is listed before the Chief Justice for allotment to a fresh Bench.

Legal Provisions for Recusal

  • There are no formal rules governing recusals, although several Supreme Court judgments have dealt with the issue.
    • In Ranjit Thakur v Union of India (1987), the Supreme Court held that the tests of the likelihood of bias are the reasonableness of the apprehension in the mind of the party. 
    • A Judge shall not hear and decide a matter in a company in which he holds shares unless he has disclosed his interest and no objection to his hearing and deciding the matter is raised,” 
      • States the 1999 charter ‘Restatement of Values in Judicial Life’, a code of ethics adopted by the Supreme Court.

Challenges with Recusal

  • Questions Judicial Independence: An investigation into the cause or reason for recusal by a judge, particularly by a litigant, would itself be an interference with the course of justice.
  • Shortage of officers: It allows litigants to cherry-pick a bench of their choice, which leaves a small pool of judges to be able to hear Litigant’s case. Also it becomes an unfair practice.
  • Slowing Down the Process: Obstructions like these slower the already slow process of justice delivery.
  • No defining law: There are no rules to determine when the judges could recuse themselves. There are only different interpretations of the same situation.

Way Ahead

  • Recusal is also regarded as the abdication of duty. Maintaining institutional civilities are distinct from the fiercely independent role of the judge as an adjudicator.
  • It is the constitutional duty, as reflected in one’s oath, to be transparent and accountable, and hence, a judge is required to indicate reasons for his recusal from a particular case.

Source: TH

 
Previous article Sri Aurobindo
Next article Geminids Meteor Shower

 Recent Posts
PAC Flag shortcomings of Swadesh Darshan Scheme

Syllabus: GS2/Governance, Schemes Context Public Accounts Committee (PAC), led by K.C. Venugopal, criticized the Tourism Ministry for poor execution of...

Read More..
Contradiction Between High Per Capita Income vs Poverty Levels in Indian States: SC

Syllabus: GS2/Issues Relating Poverty & Hunger Context Recently, the Supreme Court of India Bench, led by Justice Surya Kant, raised...

Read More..
Lokpal Forms Inquiry Wing to Probe Graft Cases Against Public Servants

Read More..
How was the Tungabhadra Dam Gate Swept Away?

Syllabus: GS3/Infrastructure Context A flood alert has been sounded downstream of the Tungabhadra dam in Karnataka’s Koppal district after one...

Read More..
Management  of Ballast Water

Syllabus :GS 3/Environment  In News Tamil Nadu Water Resources Department (WRD)  observed  that Kamarajar Port is the main reason for...

Read More..