Recusal syndrome in Indian Judiciary and its impact on Justice
Dr VK Bahuguna
October 28, 2025
(The writer is former IFS officer and Chairman of Centre for Resource Management and Environment)
In a rare case in Indian Jurisprudence almost 16 Judges right from Supreme Court, High Courts, Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), and to District Courts have recused themselves from hearing the case of Indian Forest Service (IFS) officer of Uttarakhand cadre Mr. Sanjiv Chaturvedi. Mr Chaturvedi is known for exposing malfunctioning and misuse of authority and alleged corruption in the governance at AIIMS, Haryana and Uttarakhand forest departments where he served. His legal battles on service matters, central deputations, appraisal reports, and contempt proceedings against CAT members have triggered this series of withdrawals without assigning any reasons until the Chief justice of Uttarakhand High Court salvaged the situation (after the Uttarakhand High Court Justice Alok Verma step aside from a contempt petition, marking the 16th instance) by directing the registry to put up the case before the bench headed by him. This series of recusal is not only unprecedented but surprising and has become a talk of the town among the civil servants and in the media. In the past several Judges have recused to hear cases where they have been previously standing as advocates or in cases where some linkages in any manner with the case.
The common sense demands that this issue must be debated in the public interests because judiciary is the last resort to get justice against the high handedness experienced by the individuals in the bureaucracy or at the hands of political executive. For last few decades the Indian Judiciary has taken pro-active steps through judicial interventions to correct the derailed executive functions and with quite a strong will and boldness. In the case of this officer there appears to be no reasons for bias for the Judges to recluse because most of the matters relates to service matters and harassment. This is a piquant situation for the Indian Judiciary and it must be debated and decided by the Apex Court circumstances under which a Judge can recuse himself otherwise it should be tantamount to abandonment of the bounden duty to provide natural justice.
Notwithstanding, however, the recusal is backed by the constitution as part of ensuring the natural justice as enshrined in Article 14 (Right of Equality) and Article 16 ( right to life and personal liberty); only if hearing by the particular judge can infringe upon the articles 14 and 16, so as to ensure fair trials under the maxim nemo judex in causa sua ("no one should be a judge in their own cause"). The recusal prevents actual or apparent bias, encompassing personal, pecuniary, or professional conflicts. Therefore, the honourable Supreme Court in landmark rulings like Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India (1987), asserted that recusal safeguards public confidence in the judiciary. Further, State of West Bengal v. Association for Democratic Reforms (2021) clarified that judges must recuse, if there's a reasonable apprehension of bias, but they retain discretion in deciding so, without needing to disclose detailed reasons to avoid compromising independence. Under the Code of Civil Procedure, and Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Section 479), parties can seek transfer of cases if bias is alleged, but judges initiate recusal suo motu. In administrative tribunals like CAT, governed by the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, similar principles apply, with members recusing under service rules.
This case has thrown a challenge to legal system if it is accepted as a precedent to conveniently side steps from deciding cases against the government functionaries or whenever a Judge decides to escape burden of hearing any case. Most of recusals in Chaturvedi’s cases, including by Supreme Court Justices Ranjan Gogoi (2013) and U.U. Lalit (2016), or CAT members like Harvinder Upal and B. Anand (2025), cite no reasons, fuelling speculation of external pressures or "forum shopping" by adversaries. This pattern violates the spirit of Manaklal v. Dr. Prem Chand (1957), where the apex court held that even a "probability" of bias vitiates proceedings. For dogged fighter like Mr Chaturvedi who is akin to acting as whistle blower, is protected under the Whistleblowers Protection Act, 2014 such recusals erode Article 32's right to constitutional remedies, potentially amounting to denial of speedy justice. Legally, while individual recusals are unassailable, their cumulative effect could invite scrutiny for systemic bias, possibly triggering in near future public interest litigation (PIL) on judicial accountability. The case of Mr. Sanjiv Chaturvedi also signify how the system once helped him through Presidential intervention and at the same time bureaucracy trying to crush for raising the issue of maladministration and corruption. There are several cases where the administrative members of the Central Administrative Tribunals (CATs) act as extension wings of the government and natural justice becomes a victim. Many Secretaries do a different kind of ‘forum shopping’ by contacting the members to thwart justice. CATs also need big reforms.
There is therefore need for reform and the Uttarakhand High Court Chief justice has set the trend by issuing an administrative order to put up the case to his bench. However, Supreme Court needs to go for broader reforms to ensure transparency. For this it is essential to amend judicial codes to list out non-prejudicial reasons for recusals, as recommended by the Justice J.S. Verma Committee (2018) on higher judiciary accountability. The recusing Judge should give speaking order why he or she is recusing and if the case is heard by him or her in what way the natural justice can be derailed. The Law Commission of India in its 275th Report (2018) urged digitized recusal logs to track patterns, preventing abuse. The civil on its part specially amplify this via PILs before the Supreme Court, seeking guidelines on recusal thresholds and penalties for frivolous withdrawals. Bar associations could advocate for ethics training on bias perceptions. The Indian Judiciary has time and again opted for self-correction and the present Chief Justice of India, Justice Gavai had noted in 2020 ““transparency fortifies democracy” in Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India while hearing this case on communication black out. Let us hope judicial self-correction is imminent.
(Tripurainfo)
more articles...