In a firm and final word, the Supreme Court on Friday turned down a plea asking it to write a rulebook for when judges should recuse themselves. The bench, comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, didn’t mince words: “Recusal is a matter of individual discretion. Article 142 is not a tool for issuing guidelines on it.” With that, the petition was dismissed.
The petitioner, undeterred by a previous setback in 2023, had returned to the apex court—this time narrowly focused, as allowed earlier, on whether judges’ recusals could be guided by a formal framework. But the answer from the court remained a clear “no.”
Justice Oka, during the hearing, posed a rhetorical but pointed question: “How can we frame such guidelines? This is the discretion of the judge.” The petitioner’s counsel, Advocate Nisha Tiwari, countered by pointing to international norms—where judges must disclose potential conflicts in advance—and invoked the principle that unnecessary recusals should be avoided.
She recounted a personal experience in which a Karnataka High Court judge, after reserving judgment and setting multiple dates for its pronouncement, recused on the fifth attempt. No new bench was assigned, and the matter stalled. Her argument: the absence of procedural clarity left litigants stranded.
Justice Oka acknowledged the grievance but stood firm. “We cannot frame such guidelines,” he reiterated.
The court noted the petitioner’s claim that after the Karnataka High Court judge stepped aside, no fresh bench was appointed. It suggested the petitioner move the Chief Justice of the High Court on the administrative side, expressing confidence that such an application would be acted upon.
Tiwari informed the court that she had already filed such a request, to which Justice Oka responded: “Now we have passed an order. You apply on the administrative side, and the Chief Justice will assign.”
The legal saga stretches back to an earlier petition in the Karnataka High Court seeking a criminal probe into the family of the state’s Lokayukta and alleged judicial corruption. When that judge—Justice M. Nagaprasanna—recused after reserving judgment, the petitioner moved the Supreme Court seeking an inquiry into the recusal itself.
That earlier plea was rejected on the grounds that it implicitly cast aspersions on the judge despite the petitioner’s denial of such intent. Still, the top court gave permission to file a narrower petition limited to the broader question of judicial recusals—one that has now also been denied.
In short: recusal, the court has made clear, is a matter of conscience, not codification.