The Supreme Court has dismissed a plea seeking rules for judge recusals, stating it’s a personal decision. The Court emphasized such discretion cannot be governed by fixed guidelines.
In an important ruling, the Supreme Court of India on Friday dismissed a public interest plea that sought the formation of legal guidelines for the recusal of judges from hearing specific cases.
The apex court clearly stated that the power to decide whether or not to recuse lies entirely with the judge concerned.
ALSO READ: Justice BR Gavai Attributes Supreme Court Position to Dr. BR Ambedkar’s Legacy
The case heard by a Division Bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan.
The Bench explained that the Supreme Court’s special powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, which allows the Court to pass orders to do complete justice in any case, could not be used for framing such guidelines.
The judges said,
“Jurisdiction under Article 142 (Supreme Court’s power to do ‘complete justice’ in any case) cannot be invoked to frame guidelines for recusal of judges.”
This plea was not new. The petitioners had earlier approached the top court in 2023, asking for an investigation into the recusal of Justice M Nagaprasanna of the Karnataka High Court in a set of three connected cases.
However, that plea was withdrawn after the Court noted that such a request could “send wrong signals.”
Despite that, the Supreme Court had allowed the petitioners to file a new, limited petition focusing only on the need for guidelines regarding recusal.
During the recent hearing, Advocate Nisha Tiwari, who represented the petitioners, argued that having proper guidelines would stop arbitrary recusals and promote transparency in the judiciary.
She pointed out that in several other countries, judges are required to openly state any possible conflict of interest before hearing a case.
However, the Supreme Court did not agree with this suggestion and strongly declined the request to introduce mandatory rules on when judges should step aside from cases.
The Bench clarified that decisions related to recusal are personal and cannot be governed by rigid rules.
The judges stated,
“As far as recusal of judges is concerned, it is a matter of discretion of the concerned judges. It is for them to decide whether reasons for recusal are to be disclosed.”
Additionally, the petitioners raised a concern that their original case in the Karnataka High Court had not been listed for hearing even after nine months had passed since Justice Nagaprasanna’s recusal.
In response, the Supreme Court advised them to directly approach the Chief Justice of the Karnataka High Court with a request to get the matter listed again.
The apex court expressed confidence that if such an application is made, it will be taken seriously.
The judges stated,
“We permit the petitioners to move the Chief Justice of the Hon’ble High Court to get her matter listed. We are sure that if such an application is made, the Chief Justice will assign a bench.”
This ruling makes it clear that the judiciary does not favor the creation of fixed rules on recusal, preferring to maintain the independence and discretion of individual judges.
ALSO READ: JUSTICE BR GAVAIALSO READ: JUSTICE BR GAVAI
The Supreme Court’s decision reinforces that the act of stepping aside from a case is a subjective matter and cannot be forced by external guidelines, even if the intention behind such guidelines is to ensure fairness or prevent misuse.
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Ex_CJI Sanjeev Khanna
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
