{"id":22422,"date":"2026-04-20T06:05:05","date_gmt":"2026-04-20T06:05:05","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/?p=22422"},"modified":"2026-04-20T06:10:18","modified_gmt":"2026-04-20T06:10:18","slug":"judicial-recusal-in-india-discretion-procedure-and-regulatory-framework","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/judicial-recusal-in-india-discretion-procedure-and-regulatory-framework\/","title":{"rendered":"Judicial Recusal In India: Discretion, Procedure And Regulatory Framework"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"judicial-discretion-regarding-recusal\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Judicial_Discretion_Regarding_Recusal\"><\/span>Judicial Discretion Regarding Recusal<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>The judge in India does enjoy some degree of discretion regarding his recusal; nonetheless, this is not an unfettered discretion. The discretion is regulated by the principle of no bias and the necessity for fairness as per natural justice. In fact, it has been held that any recusal order must be made on the basis of reasonable apprehension of bias, but not any arbitrary desire on the part of the judge. Consequently, while the judge enjoys discretion regarding recusal, this discretion cannot be exercised in an arbitrary fashion.<\/p><div id=\"ez-toc-container\" class=\"ez-toc-v2_0_82_2 counter-hierarchy ez-toc-counter ez-toc-grey ez-toc-container-direction\">\n<div class=\"ez-toc-title-container\">\n<p class=\"ez-toc-title\" style=\"cursor:inherit\">Table of Contents<\/p>\n<span class=\"ez-toc-title-toggle\"><a href=\"#\" class=\"ez-toc-pull-right ez-toc-btn ez-toc-btn-xs ez-toc-btn-default ez-toc-toggle\" aria-label=\"Toggle Table of Content\"><span class=\"ez-toc-js-icon-con\"><span class=\"\"><span class=\"eztoc-hide\" style=\"display:none;\">Toggle<\/span><span class=\"ez-toc-icon-toggle-span\"><svg style=\"fill: #0c0c0c;color:#0c0c0c\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" class=\"list-377408\" width=\"20px\" height=\"20px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" fill=\"none\"><path d=\"M6 6H4v2h2V6zm14 0H8v2h12V6zM4 11h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2zM4 16h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2z\" fill=\"currentColor\"><\/path><\/svg><svg style=\"fill: #0c0c0c;color:#0c0c0c\" class=\"arrow-unsorted-368013\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" width=\"10px\" height=\"10px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" version=\"1.2\" baseProfile=\"tiny\"><path d=\"M18.2 9.3l-6.2-6.3-6.2 6.3c-.2.2-.3.4-.3.7s.1.5.3.7c.2.2.4.3.7.3h11c.3 0 .5-.1.7-.3.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7zM5.8 14.7l6.2 6.3 6.2-6.3c.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7c-.2-.2-.4-.3-.7-.3h-11c-.3 0-.5.1-.7.3-.2.2-.3.5-.3.7s.1.5.3.7z\"\/><\/svg><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a><\/span><\/div>\n<nav><ul class='ez-toc-list ez-toc-list-level-1 ' ><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-1\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/judicial-recusal-in-india-discretion-procedure-and-regulatory-framework\/#Judicial_Discretion_Regarding_Recusal\" >Judicial Discretion Regarding Recusal<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-2\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/judicial-recusal-in-india-discretion-procedure-and-regulatory-framework\/#How_Does_the_Process_of_Recusal_Get_Underway\" >How Does the Process of Recusal Get Underway?<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-3\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/judicial-recusal-in-india-discretion-procedure-and-regulatory-framework\/#Common_Grounds_for_Recusal\" >Common Grounds for Recusal<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-4\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/judicial-recusal-in-india-discretion-procedure-and-regulatory-framework\/#Recusal_Process_in_India\" >Recusal Process in India<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-5\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/judicial-recusal-in-india-discretion-procedure-and-regulatory-framework\/#Key_Features_of_the_Recusal_Process\" >Key Features of the Recusal Process<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-6\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/judicial-recusal-in-india-discretion-procedure-and-regulatory-framework\/#Is_There_a_Written_Code_of_Practice\" >Is There a Written Code of Practice?<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-7\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/judicial-recusal-in-india-discretion-procedure-and-regulatory-framework\/#Comparison_with_Other_Systems\" >Comparison with Other Systems<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-8\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/judicial-recusal-in-india-discretion-procedure-and-regulatory-framework\/#Doctrine_of_Necessity\" >Doctrine of Necessity<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-9\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/judicial-recusal-in-india-discretion-procedure-and-regulatory-framework\/#Case_Laws\" >Case Laws<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-10\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/judicial-recusal-in-india-discretion-procedure-and-regulatory-framework\/#1_Ranjit_Thakur_v_Union_of_India_1987_4_SCC_611\" >1. Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India (1987) 4 SCC 611<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-11\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/judicial-recusal-in-india-discretion-procedure-and-regulatory-framework\/#2_Manak_Lal_v_Prem_Chand_Singhvi_AIR_1957_SC_425\" >2. Manak Lal v. Prem Chand Singhvi (AIR 1957 SC 425)<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-12\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/judicial-recusal-in-india-discretion-procedure-and-regulatory-framework\/#3_PK_Ghosh_v_JG_Rajput_1995_6_SCC_744\" >3. P.K. Ghosh v. J.G. Rajput (1995) 6 SCC 744<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-13\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/judicial-recusal-in-india-discretion-procedure-and-regulatory-framework\/#4_Ashok_Kumar_Yadav_v_State_of_Haryana_1987\" >4. Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana (1987)<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-14\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/judicial-recusal-in-india-discretion-procedure-and-regulatory-framework\/#5_Gullapalli_Nageswara_Rao_v_State_of_Andhra_Pradesh_1959\" >5. Gullapalli Nageswara Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1959)<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-15\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/judicial-recusal-in-india-discretion-procedure-and-regulatory-framework\/#6_Indore_Development_Authority_v_Shailendra_2018_1_SCC_733\" >6. Indore Development Authority v. Shailendra (2018) 1 SCC 733<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-16\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/judicial-recusal-in-india-discretion-procedure-and-regulatory-framework\/#Quick_Summary_Table\" >Quick Summary Table<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-17\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/judicial-recusal-in-india-discretion-procedure-and-regulatory-framework\/#Conclusion\" >Conclusion<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/nav><\/div>\n\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"how-does-the-process-of-recusal-get-underway\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"How_Does_the_Process_of_Recusal_Get_Underway\"><\/span>How Does the Process of Recusal Get Underway?<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>Recusal begins where there exists the suspicion of bias in respect of a case presented to the court. The reasons for this could include having some interest in the matter, having been engaged as counsel in the same case before, having a connection with the party litigant in some form or another, or having decided on such a case in the past. There need not necessarily be any actual bias on the part of the judge; the likelihood or the perception of bias will suffice.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"common-grounds-for-recusal\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Common_Grounds_for_Recusal\"><\/span>Common Grounds for Recusal<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Having some interest in the matter<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Having been engaged as counsel in the same case before<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Having a connection with the party litigant in some form or another<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Having decided on such a case in the past<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Likelihood or perception of bias (even without actual bias)<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"recusal-process-in-india\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Recusal_Process_in_India\"><\/span>Recusal Process in India<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>The process of recusal in India has not been made a rule or regulation. It may start at the initiative of the judge himself or on the grounds of an objection raised by any party to the case. The sole discretion in this matter lies with the concerned judge; there is no other authority that may mandate him to withdraw. In the event of the judge withdrawing, his case is presented before the chief justice through the roster process. If the judge does not withdraw despite objections, the case continues without being interrupted in any manner, and no appeal is allowed against his decision.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"key-features-of-recusal-process\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Key_Features_of_the_Recusal_Process\"><\/span>Key Features of the Recusal Process<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>No formal rule or regulation governing recusal<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Initiated either by the judge or by a party\u2019s objection<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The final decision rests solely with the concerned judge<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>No external authority can compel withdrawal<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>No appeal allowed if the judge refuses to recuse<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"is-there-a-written-code-of-practice\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Is_There_a_Written_Code_of_Practice\"><\/span>Is There a Written Code of Practice?<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>There is no statutory regulation for recusal in India. Procedural laws do not set out any rules on recusal. Recusal is based on judicial precedents and ethics. Although this provides some room for discretion, it also causes inconsistency and opaqueness. In contrast to other countries where there are statutory requirements, the Indian system is heavily dependent on judicial conscience, making recusal a judge-orientated process.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"comparison-with-other-systems\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Comparison_with_Other_Systems\"><\/span>Comparison with Other Systems<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><thead><tr><th>Aspect<\/th><th>India<\/th><th>Other Countries<\/th><\/tr><\/thead><tbody><tr><td>Legal Framework<\/td><td>No statutory regulation<\/td><td>Statutory requirements exist<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Basis<\/td><td>Judicial precedents and ethics<\/td><td>Codified legal provisions<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Nature<\/td><td>Judge-orientated process<\/td><td>System-driven process<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Transparency<\/td><td>May cause inconsistency and opaqueness<\/td><td>Generally more structured and transparent<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"doctrine-of-necessity\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Doctrine_of_Necessity\"><\/span>Doctrine of Necessity<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>This is another exception to the doctrine of recusal. It occurs in a situation whereby recusal would lead to failure of justice due to the unavailability of other judges who can hear the case. In this situation, even a biased body may have to make a decision. The main objective of this doctrine is to ensure the continuity of the process of dispensing justice.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Recusal of a judge in India is done at discretion with regard to certain guidelines of law. Factual circumstances that make the judge feel there is bias give rise to recusal of the judge. The recusal process follows an informal procedure that depends entirely on the judge in question. There are no written rules governing the process, thus leaving it at the mercy of judicial pronouncements.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"case-laws\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Case_Laws\"><\/span>Case Laws<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"ranjit-thakur-v-union-of-india-1987\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"1_Ranjit_Thakur_v_Union_of_India_1987_4_SCC_611\"><\/span>1. Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India (1987) 4 SCC 611<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Facts:<\/strong> The petitioner, army personnel, was tried by court-martial after refusing to comply with a superior\u2019s order. The presiding officer had previously taken disciplinary action against him, creating a possibility of prejudice. The petitioner argued that prior hostility and involvement made the officer incapable of impartial adjudication.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Judgement:<\/strong> &#8220;The proper approach for the judge is not to look at his own mind\u2026 but to look at the mind of the party before him.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Interpretation:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>The Court established the objective test of bias.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The perception of a reasonable litigant is decisive.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Even without proof of actual bias, a reasonable apprehension is sufficient to invalidate proceedings.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"manak-lal-v-prem-chand-singhvi-1957\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"2_Manak_Lal_v_Prem_Chand_Singhvi_AIR_1957_SC_425\"><\/span>2. Manak Lal v. Prem Chand Singhvi (AIR 1957 SC 425)<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Facts:<\/strong> A tribunal member had previously acted as counsel for one of the parties in the same matter. The proceedings were challenged on the ground that such prior involvement created a conflict of interest affecting impartiality.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Judgement:<\/strong> &#8220;Pecuniary interest, however small\u2026 would wholly disqualify a member from acting as a judge.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Interpretation:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>The Court recognised automatic disqualification.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Certain forms of bias, especially pecuniary or direct interest, invalidate proceedings without further inquiry.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"pk-ghosh-v-jg-rajput-1995\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"3_PK_Ghosh_v_JG_Rajput_1995_6_SCC_744\"><\/span>3. P.K. Ghosh v. J.G. Rajput (1995) 6 SCC 744<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Facts:<\/strong> A litigant objected to a judge hearing the matter on the ground that circumstances created doubt about impartiality. The issue was whether such apprehension justified recusal.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Judgement:<\/strong> &#8220;If there be a reasonable basis\u2026 the judge should recuse himself.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Interpretation:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>The Court affirmed that reasonable apprehension of bias is sufficient for recusal.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Strengthened the litigant-centric approach to fairness.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"ashok-kumar-yadav-v-state-of-haryana-1987\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"4_Ashok_Kumar_Yadav_v_State_of_Haryana_1987\"><\/span>4. Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana (1987)<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Facts:<\/strong> The case involved allegations of bias in a selection process where members had connections affecting neutrality. Candidates argued that the process lacked fairness.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Judgement:<\/strong> The court held that likelihood of bias is sufficient to vitiate the process.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Interpretation:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Probability of bias, not certainty, is the governing standard.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Expanded the scope of recusal.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"gullapalli-nageswara-rao-v-state-of-andhra-pradesh-1959\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"5_Gullapalli_Nageswara_Rao_v_State_of_Andhra_Pradesh_1959\"><\/span>5. Gullapalli Nageswara Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1959)<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Facts:<\/strong> The chief minister heard objections to a transport policy and later decided the matter himself. This dual role raised concerns of bias and violation of natural justice.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Judgement:<\/strong> The court upheld the decision due to statutory compulsion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Interpretation:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Established the doctrine of necessity.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Allows adjudication despite bias where no alternative authority exists.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"indore-development-authority-v-shailendra-2018\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"6_Indore_Development_Authority_v_Shailendra_2018_1_SCC_733\"><\/span>6. Indore Development Authority v. Shailendra (2018) 1 SCC 733<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Facts:<\/strong> A judge was asked to recuse due to prior judgements on the same legal issue. The argument was that earlier opinions could influence the present decision.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Judgement:<\/strong> &#8220;No litigant can choose who should be on the Bench&#8230;&#8221;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Interpretation:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>The Court limited recusal.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Prior judicial opinions do not amount to bias.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Warned against misuse of recusal for forum shopping.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"summary-table\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Quick_Summary_Table\"><\/span>Quick Summary Table<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><thead><tr><th>Case<\/th><th>Principle Established<\/th><th>Key Concept<\/th><\/tr><\/thead><tbody><tr><td>Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India<\/td><td>Objective Test of Bias<\/td><td>Reasonable Apprehension<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Manak Lal v. Prem Chand Singhvi<\/td><td>Automatic Disqualification<\/td><td>Pecuniary Interest<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>P.K. Ghosh v. J.G. Rajput<\/td><td>Recusal Standard<\/td><td>Reasonable Doubt<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana<\/td><td>Likelihood of Bias<\/td><td>Probability Standard<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Gullapalli Nageswara Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh<\/td><td>Doctrine of Necessity<\/td><td>No Alternative Authority<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Indore Development Authority v. Shailendra<\/td><td>Limits on Recusal<\/td><td>Prevention of Forum Shopping<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"conclusion\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Conclusion\"><\/span>Conclusion<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>In India, the procedure for judicial recusal is a balance between judicial discretion and the tenets of natural justice. Though judges have the power to recuse themselves from the hearing and determination of cases, this should not be an unrestricted one since it must be done out of the necessity of a reasonable fear of partiality.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>There is no legislative provision for recusal procedures since they are based on judicial conscience, ethical considerations, and decisions of the apex court of India. Such practice is advantageous in dealing with many factual scenarios but problematic in terms of inconsistency.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>However, at the same time, principles like the Doctrine of Necessity provide for a scenario where, in cases where recusal would leave the matter without a decision, the process of adjudication does not come to a standstill. The principles of judicial recusal as enshrined in leading judgements strike a fine balance, ensuring impartiality but at the same time not allowing for forum shopping by resorting to the process of recusal.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>In effect, the legal provision regarding judicial recusal in India embodies a fine balancing act between several considerations, although the need for proper guidelines cannot be ignored.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Judicial Discretion Regarding Recusal The judge in India does enjoy some degree of discretion regarding his recusal; nonetheless, this is not an unfettered discretion. The discretion is regulated by the principle of no bias and the necessity for fairness as per natural justice. In fact, it has been held that any recusal order must be<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1084,"featured_media":22428,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_topic_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_reply_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"two_page_speed":[],"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"_joinchat":[],"footnotes":""},"categories":[5602],"tags":[5483,28],"class_list":{"0":"post-22422","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-judiciary","8":"tag-judiciary","9":"tag-top-news"},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/judicial-recusal-in-india-process-grounds-case-laws-bias.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22422","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1084"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=22422"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22422\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":22429,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22422\/revisions\/22429"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/22428"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=22422"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=22422"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=22422"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}