| Introduction: Contextual introduction Body: Write the issues associated with the recusal of judges. Conclusion: Write the reforms needed |
Recusal is an act of abstaining from taking decision in matters such as legal hearings, due to conflict of interest. Judges have frequently recused themselves voluntarily in cases related to their home-state, in cases they have earlier served as lawyer, or if there is any other conflict of interest that can lead to bias in judgement.
However, the recusal of judges leads to dissolution of the bench, and re-listing of the matter before another bench. This causes delay, and leaves everyone in a lurch.
Problems in the current recusal system:
- There are no specific legislations in India to instruct on a judge’s recusal. Hence, any act of recusal, without due transparency, raises doubts over judicial fairness.
- Lack of guidelines over recusal makes different judges interpret the situations differently, so that any related conflict of interest is evoked as a means to recuse from the case.
- Requests of recusal from the bar is made in order to intimidate the judges, to get a ‘convenient’ judge or to delay the proceedings.
Therefore, recusal is an instrument, which has been overly misused, and needs to be regulated. Recently, in the Maharashtra-Karnataka border case, there have been four recusals already.
The reforms needed are:
- A neutral arbiter is needed to decide the issue whether a judge should recuse himself from the case or not. This is a widely accepted practice in USA.
- The person who appointed the judge to the case, the Chief Justice himself, can only dismiss a judge from the case. Hence, Chief Justice should decide whether to allow recusal or not.
- Legislature should bring a detailed legislation in this regard, so that the matter of recusal becomes transparent.
