Inquiry into recusal of judge unnecessary: SC
The case in question involved the recusal of a Karnataka high court judge from three matters after reserving judgment, a move that prompted the petitioner, Chandraprabha, to seek a probe into the reasons behind the judge’s decision.
The Supreme Court on Thursday emphasised that conducting an inquiry into the reasons for a judge’s recusal from a case would be both unnecessary and harmful to the judiciary’s independence, adding that the discretion of judges cannot be probed.
While judges may choose to step away from a case for various reasons, a bench led by justice Abhay S Oka said, such decisions must not be subjected to scrutiny or suspicion as doing so might undermine the integrity of the judicial process. Currently, judges are not obligated to give reasons while opting out of hearing cases.
“Can we conduct an inquiry into why a judge recused? What is this? This will send wrong signals. Guidelines are fine but you cannot seek a relief directing probe in under what circumstances judge recused,” the bench, also comprising justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and AG Masih, said.
“We cannot probe the discretion of the judge,” asserted the bench, adding that certain things need not come out in the larger interest of the institution.
The case in question involved the recusal of a Karnataka high court judge from three matters after reserving judgment, a move that prompted the petitioner, Chandraprabha, to seek a probe into the reasons behind the judge’s decision. The petition indirectly alleged that the judge recused due to external influences, particularly from the Karnataka Lokayukta.
Rejecting the petitioner’s averments, the bench criticised the suggestion that judges of constitutional courts could be influenced by external agencies, calling the claims “objectionable” and “highly inappropriate”.
“Are the judges of the constitutional courts so weak that they will get influenced by the Lokayukta?” remarked the bench, expressing serious concerns about the implications of such allegations and noting that they cast aspersions on the integrity of the judiciary.
It questioned the motives behind the petition, adding that any suggestion of influence from external sources was unacceptable. “The manner of filing this petition is highly objectionable,” it said. The bench also took issue with the specific prayers in the petition, particularly the one seeking an investigation into the circumstances of the recusal, stating: “This will send the wrong signals. Guidelines are fine, but you cannot seek relief directing a probe.”
Even as the court did acknowledge the possibility of considering guidelines for recusal, it was emphatic in its rejection of an inquiry into any individual recusal decision. Recusal, the bench suggested, is often a matter of personal discretion for judges, driven by various factors that cannot always be made public. The bench further pointed out that judges often recuse themselves to avoid any potential bias or conflict of interest, and their discretion in doing so should be protected.
Facing scrutiny, the petitioner ultimately sought permission to withdraw the petition. The Supreme Court allowed the withdrawal but noted that the petition raised serious concerns about the way allegations were made against the judiciary. The bench made it clear that the court had not made any decision on whether guidelines for recusal were necessary, stating in its order: “We allow the withdrawal but clarify that today we have not made any adjudication on whether it will be appropriate to lay down guidelines for recusal.”
To be sure, recusal is not governed by any official norms, and it is often left to individual judges to record the reasons for it. Justice Kurian Joseph, who comprised the five-judge constitution bench that struck down the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) in 2015, supported judges disclosing their reasons for declining to hear a case. In his separate ruling, justice Joseph juxtaposed his opinions with the concepts of accountability and openness, stating that the constitutional obligation placed on judges would justify making the grounds for a judge’s recusal publicly known.