To Judge or Not to Judge: Why India Needs a Codified and Unambiguous Framework For Recusal |
Listen to this article:
Indian Judiciary’s conduct appears to be in grey waters once again over a recent case involving an ex-chief minister.
Every court of law is bestowed with the power and responsibility to uphold the constitutional values of a nation. It is not always an easy task for courts to adjudicate on any matter of law; there are limitations, substantive, procedural and moral.
One such self-limiting boundary is recusal. Judicial recusal is the voluntary withdrawal of a judge from a case to ensure fairness devoid of any personal bias.
The recent recusal episode involving former Delhi chief minister Arvind Kejriwal and Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma exposes this incongruity by bringing to the fore a flaw in institutional design that demands attention and greater scrutiny.
The case concerned a revision petition against the trial court’s judgment rejecting CBI’s allegations of bribery, conspiracy, and destruction of evidence against Arvind Kejriwal and others.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma of the Delhi high court denied Kejriwal’s request for disqualification because she found his “reasonable apprehensions” baseless, terming them mere “illusions.”
Justice Sharma’s assertion that her allegiance to the Constitution serves as an immunity from pressure from litigants shows that the Indian Bench has maintained its traditional defense system, which emphasises the role of judges’ consciences as the only criterion of their neutrality.
However, this case highlights a growing dilemma. While the judge categorised the request as a ‘theatre of perception,’ the very fact that such a plea emerged from high-stakes political litigation underscores a fragile reality.
In an era of perceived executive dominance, the judiciary’s ‘Internal Conscience’ approach is under unprecedented strain. Because India lacks a codified statute governing recusal, the act of stepping down remains a voluntary monologue rather than a transparent adherence to rule-based due process.
We can argue that the current legal vacuum, where the judiciary remains the sole judge of its own bias, is an institutional flaw that risks eroding public legitimacy. By examining the ‘duty to sit’ against the ‘appearance........