Context: Recently, Justices D.Y. Chandrachud and A.S. Bopanna of the Supreme Court recused themself from hearing a dispute on the allocation of the Krishna river water.
Reason behind this move

• Krishna river water dispute comprises the States of Telangana, Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka.
• Justice Chandrachud is from Maharashtra and Justice Bopanna hails from Karnataka.
• Justice Chandrachud explained to the lawyers present that they had noticed that judges similarly placed like them — hailing from the States in dispute — had recused themselves from the case. 

About Recusal of a Judge

• 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. This is known as Recusal of a Judge.
• If a conflict of interest exists, the judge may recuse herself on her own initiative. In addition, any party in a case may make a motion to require the judge to recuse herself from hearing the case.
• The practice stems from the cardinal principle of due process of law that nobody can be a judge in her own case. 

Key process for recusal

• The decision to recuse generally comes from the judge herself as it rests on the conscience and discretion of the judge to disclose any potential conflict of interest. 
• If a judge recuses, the case is listed before the Chief Justice for allotment to a fresh Bench.
• There are no formal rules governing recusals, although several Supreme Court judgments have dealt with the issue.

Do judges record reasons for recusal?

• Because there are no explicit guidelines controlling the procedure, individual judges are frequently left to record grounds for recusal.
• Some judges reveal their motivations in open court; in others, the motivations are apparent.

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, there have also been several cases where judges have refused to withdraw from a case.

Instances of Judges Recusal in India

• It was seen in the case of Ashok Kumar Yadav v State of Haryana & Ors that the court held that “the fundamental principles of our jurisprudence is that no man can be a judge in his own cause”. 
• In Novartis AG v Union of India case, Justice Markandey Katju withdrew his name from this case as according to him it would not be ideal for him to deal with Novartis appeal. 

Key concerns with the recusal of judges in India

• Judges are compelled to give reasons for their recusal from a particular case because they are bound by the constitutional obligation of transparency and accountability, which is expressed in their oath.
• In India, there is no particular legislation that mandates a judge’s recusal.
• Lawyers may take unfair advantage of this by asking judges to remove themselves from cases where they believe they will not receive a favourable outcome.
• Recusal would not be required in circumstances when the judge’s concern is not financial.
• Recusal is also known as the abdication of responsibility. The judge’s fiercely autonomous duty as an adjudicator is distinct from maintaining institutional civilities.

Road Ahead

• The current judicial structure in relation to judge recusal differs from what was noticed and seen in the early days of it becoming a common law jurisprudence norm. India is still one of the countries that do not have any measures in place for judges to recuse themselves.

By: Shubham Tiwari