Judicial Recusal in the Delhi High Court Controversy: Impartiality vs Judicial Discretion

• Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma of the Delhi High Court declined to recuse herself from hearing the Delhi excise policy case on April 20, 2026.
• The case pertains to Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) vs Kuldeep Singh and others.
• It involves several accused, including former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal.
• Arvind Kejriwal personally appeared before the High Court as a party and requested that the judge recuse herself from the case.
• The petition before the High Court was filed by the CBI challenging the acquittal of the accused by a lower court, and objections were raised regarding the hearing of this very petition.

Key Grounds for Judicial Recusal

• Adverse observations in prior proceedings:
  • The judge had made certain adverse findings/remarks during earlier hearings, raising concerns about possible bias.
• Allegations of ideological inclination:
  • It was alleged that the judge participated in events organized by Akhil Bharatiya Adhivakta Parishad (ABAP), which is perceived by some as being aligned with the ruling ideology.
• Conflict of interest (family connections):
  • The judge’s children are serving as panel advocates under the Central Government.
  • They have been assigned cases by the Solicitor General.
  • Coincidentally, the Solicitor General is representing the opposing party in this case.
• Political statement:
  • A statement by Amit Shah (Union Home Minister) was cited, which allegedly indicated that Arvind Kejriwal might lose the case this was interpreted as suggesting a preconceived outcome in the High Court.

Main Argument

Apprehension of Bias:

• Based on the above factors, it was argued that there exists a reasonable apprehension of bias, which raises doubts about the possibility of a fair trial.

Judicial Recusal: Introduction and Core Concept

• Judicial recusal refers to a judge voluntarily withdrawing from hearing a case.
• It is a key principle of judicial impartiality, invoked when a judge believes that their involvement may give rise to doubts of bias or conflict of interest.
• In the Indian judicial system, this principle is essential to uphold fairness, transparency, and public confidence in the administration of justice.
• Judicial recusal is not only meant to prevent actual bias but also to preserve the credibility and integrity of the judiciary.

Legal Position and Nature in India

• In India, there is no specific codified law governing judicial recusal, making it largely dependent on judicial discretion and ethical standards.
• Judges themselves decide whether they should recuse from a case.
• As a result, recusal is more of an ethical issue than a purely technical or legal one.
• Over time, a rich body of jurisprudence has evolved through judicial precedents, incorporating international principles and best practices.
• While this provides flexibility and independence to judges, it also creates ambiguity, sometimes leading to controversies.

Judicial Principles and International Standards

• The principle of judicial recusal has been reinforced through several landmark judicial decisions:
• In R v Sussex Justices, it was established that “justice must not only be done but must also be seen to be done.”
• In Leeson v General Council of Medical Education, it was emphasized that a judge must be “above suspicion, like Caesar’s wife.”
• Additionally, the Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct lay down seven core values for judges: independence, impartiality, integrity, propriety, equality, competence, and diligence.
• According to these principles, a judge must avoid not only actual impropriety but even the appearance of impropriety, ensuring that public trust in the judiciary remains intact.

Indian Judicial Precedents on Recusal

• Ranjit Thakur v Union of India
  • The test of bias is not based on the judge’s own perception, but on the reasonable apprehension of the litigant.
• P.K. Ghosh v J.G. Rajput
  • If a party has a reasonable apprehension of bias, it is उचित (appropriate) for the judge to recuse themselves from the case.
• State of Punjab v Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar
  • Even the mere apprehension of bias can be sufficient to invalidate a judicial decision.
• Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v Union of India
  • Reaffirmed the “reasonable observer test,” which examines whether a fair-minded and informed observer would perceive a likelihood of bias.

Core Challenge Before a Judge: Impartiality vs Subjectivity

• The central challenge in judicial recusal is that the decision-maker is the judge themselves.
• According to legal scholar James Sample, “the real tests of disqualification occur in the courtroom itself.”
• This implies that a judge must not only be impartial but must also appear to be impartial.
• The practical difficulty arises when the same judge, whose impartiality is being questioned, decides whether to step aside.
• This situation increases the risk of subjectivity and may affect the credibility of the judicial process.

Philosophical Basis: Limits of Human Perception

• The noted American jurist Benjamin N. Cardozo observed that “we may try to see things objectively, but ultimately we see them through our own perspective.”
• This reinforces the idea that no individual can be a completely impartial judge in their own cause.
• Hence, the well-established legal maxim Nemo judex in causa sua—no one should be a judge in their own case.
• The doctrine of recusal is rooted in this philosophical and ethical foundation, aiming to minimize the influence of personal bias in judicial decision-making.