How judges recuse from cases, and why?

• 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.
• In a week, two Supreme Court judges have recused themselves from hearing cases relating to West Bengal.

• On June 21, Delhi High Court judge Anup Bhambhani recused himself from hearing a plea by digital media houses challenging the validity of the IT rules regulating intermediaries.

What is the Recusal of Judges & Why does a judge recuse?

• Recusal is the removal of oneself as a judge or policymaker in a particular matter, especially because of a conflict of interest.

• The conflict of interest can be in many ways — from holding shares in a company that is a litigant to having a prior or personal association with a party involved in the case.
• The practice stems from the cardinal principle of due process of law that nobody can be a judge in her own case.

• Since a judge has a duty to act fair.

• 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 SC judge when she was in the HC.
• A recusal inevitably leads to delay. The case goes back to the Chief Justice, who has to constitute a fresh Bench.

What is the process for recusal?

• There are no formal rules governing recusals, although several Supreme Court judgments have dealt with the issue.
• The decision rests on the conscience of the judge. At times, parties involved raise apprehensions about a possible conflict of interest.

1999 charter ‘Restatement of Values in Judicial Life’, a code of ethics adopted by the Supreme Court states that:

• ""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"".

Can a judge refuse to recuse?

• 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 an apprehension was cast.

• 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.

• There have also been several cases where judges have refused to withdraw from a case.

• Justice Arun Mishra(in 2019) had controversially refused to recuse himself, and reasoned that the request for recusal was really an excuse for “forum shopping” and agreeing could compromise the independence of the judiciary.

Issues with recusal

• 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.
• There is a need for judges to give reasons for recusal as a measure to build transparency.
• 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.