Judicial Recusal

Why in news?

The Supreme Court judge Justice MR Shah refused to recuse himself from hearing a plea by former Indian Police Service (IPS) officer Sanjiv Bhatt.

What is Judicial Recusal?

• Judicial recusal is when a judge withdraws from a case due to a conflict of interest or a reasonable apprehension of bias.
• This is done to ensure that the case is decided fairly and that the outcome is not influenced by the personal biases of the judge.
• The practice of judicial recusal stems from the cardinal principle of due process of law, which requires that all parties to a case be treated fairly and impartially.
• If a judge recuses themselves, the case is assigned to a different judge.
• Judicial recusal is an important part of ensuring that the justice system is fair and impartial.

In legal terms, bench fixing, bench hunting or forum shopping refers to petitioners managing to get their cases heard by a particular judge or court to ensure a favorable order.

Why do judges recuse themselves?

• Financial or personal interest in the outcome of the case
• Prior involvement in the case, such as having served as a lawyer or judge in the case
• A close personal relationship with one of the parties
• A belief that they cannot be impartial in the case

What are the rules governing judicial recusal in India?

• No codified rules governing recusals - In India but several Supreme Court judgments have dealt with the issue.
• Supreme Court - Has over time outlined various factors to be taken into consideration for deciding the impartiality of a judge.
• Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India (1987) - SC held that it is important for the judge to be honest in the eyes of the concerned party rather than himself.
• State of West Bengal v. Shivananda Pathak (1998) - Defined that it is a condition of mind which renders the judge incapable of impartiality in a particular case, the Court explained.
• Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India (2015) - Court observed that where a judge has a pecuniary interest, no further inquiry is needed as to whether there was a ‘real danger’ or ‘reasonable suspicion’ of bias.
• Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal and Ors (2019) - Court held that held that a judge who had rendered any decision in a smaller combination is not disqualified from being part of a larger Bench to which a reference is made.

What is the judicial recuse practice in foreign nations?

• United States - The Code of Conduct for United States Judges sets out the rules governing judicial recusal.
• The Code of Conduct provides that a judge must recuse themselves if they have a financial interest in the outcome of the case, or if they have a close personal relationship with one of the parties.
• The Code of Conduct also provides that a judge must recuse themselves if there is a reasonable apprehension of bias.
• United Kingdom - The Judicial Conduct and Investigations Office (JCIO) is responsible for investigating allegations of judicial misconduct.
• JCIO has published guidance on judicial recusal, which sets out the principles that judges should follow when considering whether or not to recuse themselves.
• Canada - Canadian Judicial Council (CJC) is responsible for overseeing the conduct of judges.
• CJC has published a code of conduct for judges, which sets out the rules governing judicial recusal.

What is the way forward?

• Need for clarity and transparency in recusal procedures
• Need of Balancing the impartiality with the discretion of judges
• Need of maintaining public confidence in the justice system through fair and transparent recusal practices

Reference

1. The Hindu│ Judicial Recuse