The recusal of successive Chief Justices of India from hearing the challenge to the Chief Election Commissioner Appointment Act, 2023 raises fundamental questions about judicial conflict of interest doctrine and institutional accountability. Examine.

Question

PocketIAS · Accepted Answer

Introduction

The recusal of successive Chief Justices from hearing challenges to the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Appointment Act, 2023 foregrounds a paradox: while recusal protects judicial integrity, repeated withdrawals risk undermining institutional accountability and timely constitutional adjudication.

Body

Recusal flows from the principle that “justice must not only be done but be seen to be done”, anchored in Articles 14 and 21 (fair procedure) and the broader doctrine of natural justice (nemo judex in causa sua). In this case, the concern arises because the 2023 Act replaced the SC’s own framework in Anoop Baranwal (2023)—which had included the CJI in the selection committee—with a committee excluding the CJI. This creates a potential institutional conflict of interest, as the Court is asked to review a law that alters its own role, justifying caution and recusal.

However, the absence of a codified recusal framework in India leads to opacity and inconsistency. Recusal decisions remain largely subjective and unreasoned, unlike jurisdictions such as the US where statutory standards (28 U.S.C. §455) guide judges. Successive recusals by CJIs can result in bench instability, forum uncertainty, and delays, effectively stalling judicial review on a matter central to electoral independence (Article 324). This risks creating a “recusal vacuum”, where no bench is perceived as fully impartial, weakening public confidence.

At a deeper level, the episode reveals tension between individual judicial ethics and institutional responsibility. Excessive recusal may amount to abdication of constitutional duty, while non-recusal may invite allegations of bias—highlighting the need for a balanced doctrine.

Conclusion / Way Forward

India requires a transparent, rule-based recusal framework—including written reasons, limited scope for strategic recusals, and mechanisms for bench reconstitution by senior-most judges. Ultimately, safeguarding both impartiality and decisional continuity is essential for maintaining the credibility of judicial review in a constitutional democracy.

✍️ Practice Mode

Write. Evaluate. Improve. Repeat.

The model answer is ready.

Comments (0)