Courts not only deliver verdicts, but also create confidence in the minds of people about justice. An ordinary citizen goes to the court because he has faith that the judge will look at his case without any bias or prejudice and he will get justice. India’s justice system rests on this trust. Therefore, sometimes judges recuse themselves from hearing a particular case, so that the message is not sent that there may be any personal bias in the decision.

In the last few years, it happened many times that some judges of the Supreme Court or High Court recused themselves from a case. Sometimes reasons are given, sometimes not, but the question arises that how can a judge recuse himself from a case and what difference does it make to his career?

How can a judge recuse himself from a case?

This is called Recusal in English i.e. withdrawing oneself from the hearing of a case. The main reason for this is conflict of interest. Meaning, any relationship, background or association that people feel could influence the judge’s decision. As if the judge is from the same state where the case is related to. There may be a past acquaintance or professional relationship with any party, the judge may have previously been an advocate in the same case, the judge may have shares or interests in any organization related to that case.

Does the judge have to give reasons?
There is no fixed rule that the judge has to be told why he is stepping aside. Sometimes the judge himself gives the reason, sometimes he silently withdraws without giving any reason, it completely depends on the judge. However, there are some ethical guidelines. For example, if a judge has shares in a company, he cannot hear cases of the same company. Apart from this, if the judge has previously been a lawyer in a case, then he should withdraw from that case.

What happens to the case if the judge withdraws?

The case is given to another judge or a new bench. Who to give is decided by the Chief Justice in the High Court and the CJI in the Supreme Court. Sometimes a judge is changed and sometimes the entire bench is changed. Whereas the judge recusing from the case is a normal process. This is considered sensible and moral. Many times this step increases the credibility of the judiciary. It is clear from this that for the purpose of justice, a judge’s withdrawal from a particular hearing or case does not affect his career in any way.

Read also Apart from triple talaq, how many types of divorce are there, what is the difference between them?

Education Loan Information:
Calculate Education Loan EMI

Supreme Court Judge Justice K.K. Vinod Chandran on Monday (August 18, 2025) separated himself from hearing a petition challenging the appointment of Professor Naima Khatoon as the Vice Chancellor of Aligarh Muslim University (AMU). The apex court was told that Khatoon became VC by getting important votes of her husband, who was the Vice Chancellor (VC) of AMU at that time. The petitioner called the husband voting in favor of his wife as a conflict of interest.

Chief Justice BR Gawai and Justice Chandran and Justice N.V. Anjaria’s bench is hearing an appeal filed against the order of Allahabad High Court on behalf of Muzaffar Uruz Rabbani in which Khatoon’s appointment was upheld. Khatoon is the first woman to hold this post in the history of the institute. During the proceedings, Justice Chandran offered to separate himself from the case citing his previous role as a Chancellor in a similar selection process.

Faizan Mustafa selected
Justice Chandran said that when I selected Faizan Mustafa. At that time I was the Chancellor of Consortium (CNLU) of National Law University, so I can separate myself from the hearing. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said that we (Justice Chandran) have full faith. There is no need to separate from the hearing. You can decide. The Chief Justice said, “Let my brother (Justice Chandran) decide. List the matter before the bench, whose part is not Justice Chandran. Now this petition will be heard before the second bench. Initially on behalf of the petitioner, senior advocate Kapil Sibal questioned the validity of the selection process. ”

This method of appointing the Vice Chancellors
This is the way to appoint vice -chancellors, so I tremble only thinking what will happen in the future. He said that the results were affected due to two important votes, one of which was also of the outgoing Vice Chancellor. Sibal said, “If those two votes are left, they would have got only 6 votes. Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati opposed this argument and emphasized the historical nature of Khatoon’s appointment. He argued that this is partly selection and partially choice. The High Court may not agree with our election logic, but it upheld his appointment. He said that the petitioner did not challenge the relevant appointments like Provost (equivalent of Dean).

Vice Chancellor should avoid participating in the voting process
However, the Chief Justice said that in an ideal situation, the Vice Chancellor should have avoided participating in the voting process. He also said, “Even in the decisions of the collegium, if such a situation arises, we separate ourselves (from the process).

Also read: India Block VP Candidate: India alliance will announce its candidate for the post of Vice President today? These 3 names are in the race