CLAT PG Current Affairs — 4 May 2026

India's judicial recusal doctrine operates without codified statutory framework, relying on constitutional conventions, common law principles, and natural justice. Governed by maxim 'nemo judex in causa sua' (no one judge in own cause), it balances impartiality with duty to sit. Recent Kejriwal-Justice Sharma case highlighted gaps. Grounds include pecuniary interest, family relationships, prior professional involvement. Courts warn against 'bench hunting' - litigant-driven attempts to engineer favorable forums. Framework draws from Restatement of Judicial Values (1999), Bangalore Principles (2002), emphasizing reasonable apprehension test over actual bias proof.

Judicial recusal in India exemplifies judge-made law addressing fundamental tension between ensuring justice appears fair and preventing forum manipulation. Unlike countries with statutory frameworks, India relies on ethical guidelines and precedent. The doctrine's foundation rests on constitutional morality and natural justice principles, particularly the maxim that no one should judge their own cause. The 'reasonable apprehension' test, established through Supreme Court jurisprudence, focuses on perception rather than actual bias - whether a fair-minded observer might reasonably question impartiality. This creates delicate balancing act: judges must recuse when neutrality appears compromised while resisting pressure from litigants seeking favorable benches. Recent high-profile cases, including Justice Khehar's refusal in NJAC proceedings and multiple recusals in Sanjiv Chaturvedi's contempt case, illustrate doctrine's complexity. Courts distinguish between legitimate grounds (financial interest, personal relationships, prior professional involvement) and speculative allegations or ideological disagreements. The absence of codified rules means each situation requires contextual judgment, guided by constitutional principles and institutional integrity. This fluid approach preserves judicial independence while maintaining public confidence in justice delivery system.