Context

• The refusal of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma of the Delhi High Court to recuse herself from hearing the case Central Bureau of Investigation vs Kuldeep Singh and Others (April 20, 2026) has reignited debate on the principles governing judicial recusal in India.
• The matter, involving prominent political figures such as Arvind Kejriwal, raises fundamental questions about judicial impartiality, institutional integrity, and public confidence in the legal system.
• This episode appears to depart from established jurisprudence, which prioritises not only actual fairness but also the perception of fairness in judicial proceedings.

Background of the Case

• The case arose from a plea by Arvind Kejriwal, who appeared in person before the High Court, seeking the recusal of Justice Sharma.
• The Central Bureau of Investigation had challenged a trial court order discharging the accused in the Delhi excise policy case, including Kejriwal himself.
• The recusal plea was based on several grounds:
  • Prior adverse findings by the judge in related proceedings.
  • Her participation in events organised by the Akhil Bharatiya Adhivakta Parishad (ABAP).
  • The professional engagements of her children with the government.
  • A public statement by Home Minister Amit Shah suggesting an unfavourable outcome for Kejriwal.

Legal Framework on Judicial Recusal

• Absence of Codified Law
  • Judicial recusal in India is not governed by a specific statute, instead, it is rooted in ethical principles, judicial precedents, and global best practices.
  • This makes recusal more a matter of judicial conscience guided by established norms than rigid legal rules.
• Foundational Principles
  • The principle that justice must not only be done but also be seen to be done has long been recognised in common law jurisprudence.
  • The Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct (2002) further reinforce that judges must avoid both impropriety and its appearance.

Indian Judicial Precedents

• Ranjit Thakur v Union of India (1987): Emphasised that the test is not the judge’s own perception of bias but that of the litigant.
• P.K. Ghosh v J.G. Rajput (1995): Held that recusal is appropriate when a litigant reasonably apprehends bias, especially where alternatives exist.
• State of Punjab v Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar (2011): Established that even the appearance of bias is sufficient to vitiate a decision.
• Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v Union of India (2015): Reiterated the test of reasonable doubt in the mind of a fair observer regarding impartiality.

Analysis of the Judgment

• Shift from Established Standards
  • Justice Sharma’s judgment departs from settled principles by focusing on the absence of proven bias rather than addressing the reasonable apprehension of bias.
  • This effectively raises the threshold for recusal, contradicting established jurisprudence.
• Defensive and Personal Reasoning
  • The judgment includes responses to allegations concerning the judge’s personal and professional associations, such as her children’s careers and her attendance at certain events.
  • While these clarifications may be relevant, they do not directly engage with the legal test of perceived impartiality.
• Mischaracterisation of Criticism
  • Another notable aspect is the conflation of criticism of the judge with criticism of the judiciary as an institution.
  • This approach weakens the analytical strength of the judgment and diverts attention from the core issue of maintaining public confidence.

The Issue of Self-Adjudication

• A structural concern highlighted by this case is that the judge whose recusal is sought also decides the recusal application.
• This creates an inherent tension with the principle that no person should be a judge in their own cause.
• A more appropriate course of action would have been to refer the recusal plea to another judge.
• Such a step would have ensured greater objectivity and reinforced the credibility of the judicial process.

Implications for Judicial Integrity

• Erosion of Public Confidence
  • Judicial legitimacy depends heavily on public trust. In politically sensitive cases, even a perception of bias can significantly undermine confidence in the system.
• Impact on Proceedings
  • The decision led to a breakdown in trust, with the litigants refusing to participate further in proceedings before the same judge.
  • This shows how procedural concerns can directly affect the administration of justice.
• Risk of Problematic Precedent
  • By deviating from established standards, the judgment risks setting a precedent that may weaken safeguards against perceived bias in future cases.

Conclusion

• The Delhi High Court episode underscores the delicate balance between judicial independence and the need for accountability.
• While judges must guard against frivolous recusal requests, they must also prioritise the appearance of impartiality.
• Established legal principles in India clearly favour recusal in situations where a reasonable apprehension of bias exists.
• Ultimately, the strength of the judiciary lies not only in its decisions but in the trust it commands.