{"id":94734,"date":"2026-03-25T10:37:54","date_gmt":"2026-03-25T05:07:54","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/?p=94734"},"modified":"2026-03-25T11:46:56","modified_gmt":"2026-03-25T06:16:56","slug":"cji-recusal-and-judicial-ethics","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/cji-recusal-and-judicial-ethics\/","title":{"rendered":"CJI Recusal and Judicial Ethics: Limits, Precedents &#038; Need for Codification"},"content":{"rendered":"<h2><b>CJI Recusal Latest News<\/b><\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Recently, CJI Surya Kant recused himself from hearing petitions challenging the <\/span><b>Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023 <\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">\u2014 legislation that replaced the CJI with a Union Minister on the panel for appointing Election Commissioners, thereby superseding the Supreme Court&#8217;s own 2023 interim arrangement.\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Citing potential conflict of interest, the CJI directed that the case (<\/span><i><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Dr. Jaya Thakur v. Union of India<\/span><\/i><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">, 2024) be listed before a bench comprising judges not in the line of succession to the office of CJI.\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Notably, this is the second consecutive recusal \u2014 CJI Sanjiv Khanna had similarly stepped away from the same case in 2024. While the administrative direction is clear, the CJI&#8217;s oral remarks have raised questions that are likely to outlast the constitution of the new bench.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2><b>The Doctrine of Recusal: Foundations and Framework<\/b><\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Recusal is rooted in one of the oldest maxims of <\/span><b>natural justice<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">: <\/span><i><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Nemo judex in causa sua<\/span><\/i><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> \u2014 &#8220;No one shall be a judge in their own cause&#8221;<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">This principle ensures that justice is not only done but is seen to be done, free from bias or conflict of interest.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h3><b>Evolution of the Standard in India<\/b><\/h3>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Indian courts have progressively refined the recusal standard through key judgments:<\/span>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"2\"><i><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Manak Lal v. Dr. Prem Chand<\/span><\/i><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> (1957) &#8211; Strict automatic disqualification for pecuniary (financial) interest.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"2\"><i><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India <\/span><\/i><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">(1987) &#8211; Shifted to <\/span><b>reasonable apprehension of bias<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> \u2014 not merely a remote possibility \u2014 as the threshold for recusal.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The evolution reflects a move from a rigid, interest-based test to a more perception-based standard \u2014 what a reasonable person would think about the judge&#8217;s impartiality.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h3><b>Who Decides: The Judge&#8217;s Own Conscience<\/b><\/h3>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">A critical feature of India&#8217;s recusal framework is that:<\/span>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"2\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The decision to recuse rests solely on the judge&#8217;s own conscience<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"2\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">No party can compel a judge to recuse<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"2\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">No statute in India codifies the standards or procedure for recusal<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2><b>The NJAC Precedent: When Recusal Was Refused<\/b><\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">In Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India (2015), a five-judge Constitution Bench was hearing a challenge to the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Act, 2014.<\/span>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"2\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">\u00a0The legislation sought to replace the Collegium system for judicial appointments.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Recusal was sought against Justice J.S. Khehar on the ground that he would eventually become CJI and therefore had an institutional stake in whether the Collegium or NJAC governed future appointments.\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Justice Khehar refused, on two grounds:<\/span>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"2\"><b>Universal conflict<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> \u2014 The conflict infected every judge on the bench, since all would either benefit from the Collegium (if petitioners succeeded) or be subject to the NJAC (if they failed).<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"2\"><b>Doctrine of Necessity<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> \u2014 When the only available forum itself faces a disqualifying conflict, institutional obligation must override the conflict<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Justice Kurian Joseph added an important dimension \u2014 that a judge who chooses to recuse has a <\/span><b>constitutional duty of transparency<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">.\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Stating reasons for withdrawal, he held, is itself part of the oath of office taken under the <\/span><b>Third Schedule of the Constitution<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2><b>The Present Case: Was CJI&#8217;s Recusal Justified<\/b><\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The logic that compelled Justice Khehar to stay on in the NJAC case applies equally to the current CEC law challenge:<\/span>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"2\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Under the seniority convention established by the Second Judges Case, every sitting Supreme Court judge is a potential future CJI.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"2\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Therefore, the same conflict of interest that moved CJI Surya Kant to recuse afflicts every judge of the court simultaneously.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">If the conflict is universal \u2014 touching every judge equally \u2014 then the doctrine of necessity compels the court to hear the case regardless, because:<\/span>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"2\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">No alternative court of equivalent jurisdiction exists;<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"2\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The conflict should be openly acknowledged, as the NJAC bench did, rather than used as grounds for stepping away.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Viewed through the NJAC precedent, CJI Surya Kant&#8217;s recusal represents a departure from a principle the court itself laid down a decade ago \u2014 that <\/span><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">universal institutional conflict is not a valid ground for individual recusal; it is precisely the situation where the doctrine of necessity must apply<\/span><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2><b>The Problematic Direction: Binding Future Judges<\/b><\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Beyond the recusal itself, the CJI&#8217;s oral direction \u2014 that the replacement bench must exclude judges in line to become CJI \u2014 raises a deeper constitutional problem.\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Recusal is an act of individual judicial conscience; it cannot be mandated in advance by a predecessor for judges who have not yet considered the question themselves.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">A further incongruity arises: if CJI Surya Kant recused himself due to conflict of interest, how can he \u2014 as Master of the Roster \u2014 decide <\/span><b>which judges hear the case<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">?\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The order authorises him to earmark the bench, even after stepping away.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2><b>The Case for Codifying Judicial Recusal in India<\/b><\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">India currently has:<\/span>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"2\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">No statute governing judicial recusal<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"2\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">No binding code of conduct enforceable against Supreme Court judges<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"2\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">No mechanism to review a recusal decision once made<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Recusal remains entirely a matter of individual judicial conscience \u2014 with no external check or objective standard.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The US model \u2014 under Section 455, Title 28 of the United States Code \u2014 provides a codified, objective standard for judicial disqualification.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h3><b>Why the CEC Case Makes It Urgent<\/b><\/h3>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The current dispute \u2014 where two successive Chief Justices have recused from the same case \u2014 exposes the institutional cost of this vacuum.\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">A question as consequential as who appoints the guardians of India&#8217;s elections is being left to a bench constituted by informal direction rather than principled rule.\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The deficit, as the article notes, is institutional as much as it is individual.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2><b>The Way Forward<\/b><\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">India&#8217;s constitutional framework benefits from judges who exercise recusal with care and conscience.\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">But a robust democracy demands more \u2014 a framework that transforms judicial discretion into enforceable obligation, bringing transparency, consistency, and accountability to one of the judiciary&#8217;s most sensitive decisions.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><b>Source:<\/b> <strong><a href=\"https:\/\/www.thehindu.com\/news\/when-the-chief-justice-steps-away\/article70781217.ece\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"nofollow noopener\">TH<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>CJI Recusal in the CEC appointment case raises urgent questions on judicial ethics, the doctrine of necessity, and India&#8217;s lack of codified recusal law.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":18,"featured_media":94740,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[18],"tags":[6347,60,22,59],"class_list":{"0":"post-94734","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-upsc-mains-current-affairs","8":"tag-cji-recusal","9":"tag-mains-articles","10":"tag-upsc-current-affairs","11":"tag-upsc-mains-current-affairs","12":"no-featured-image-padding"},"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/94734","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/18"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=94734"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/94734\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":94744,"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/94734\/revisions\/94744"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/94740"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=94734"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=94734"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=94734"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}