CJI RECUSAL AMOUNTS TO RUNNING AWAY FROM CRUCIAL JUDICIAL LEADERSHIP ROLE

Impartiality in decision-making is regarded as the cornerstone of a fair and just legal system. Judges are
expected to set aside personal beliefs, biases, and prejudices in order to apply the law objectively, ensuring that their decisions are based solely on the facts presented before them. The decision by Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna to recuse himself from hearing petitions challenging the exclusion of Chief Justices of India (CJIs) from the panel selecting the Chief Election Commissioner must lead to a debate on the nature of judicial recusal and the impact of personal beliefs on court decisions. While recusal is a necessary and sometimes unavoidable mechanism to preserve the integrity of the judicial process, it raises important questions about the role of personal biases and judicial conscience in high-stakes cases.

Judicial recusal is a concept grounded in the principle that judges must avoid situations where their
impartiality could be questioned. In some cases, judges may step aside from a case due to perceived
conflicts of interest, such as personal relationships with the parties involved, or past rulings on similar issues that might cloud their judgment. This is seen as essential to maintaining public confidence in the judiciary. However, while recusal is relatively common for lower court judges or in cases where the judge’s personal connection to the subject matter is overt, it is rare for a Chief Justice of India to recuse themselves from a case. The reason for this is simple: the CJI is considered the embodiment of the judiciary in India, often presiding over the most significant matters of constitutional and legal importance. The CJI’s involvement is not just a formality but an expression of the gravity and authority that the Supreme Court holds in interpreting and upholding the law.

In the case at hand, Chief Justice Khanna’s decision to recuse himself from hearing the petitions challenging the exclusion of the CJI from the panel for selecting the Chief Election Commissioner is intriguing. The reason for his recusal, as stated by him, was his previous involvement in passing an interim order in the matter. This could be seen as an attempt to avoid any perception of bias or conflict of interest. While it is commendable that the Chief Justice sought to maintain the integrity of the judicial process by stepping aside, one could argue that his absence from the bench on this matter might have created a situation where the leadership of the Supreme Court was not fully represented in addressing a case of immense constitutional importance.

The case concerning the election commission and the role of the CJI in selecting its head touches on
questions of democratic governance and the separation of powers between the executive and the judiciary. Given the increasing centralization of power within the executive branch, particularly in recent years, the need for an independent and impartial Election Commission has never been more critical. The exclusion of the CJI from the panel selecting the Chief Election Commissioner has significant implications for the
balance of power in Indian democracy. In this context, it would have been fitting for the CJI to personally oversee the matter, not only because of the constitutional significance of the case, but also because the judicial leadership would offer a level of gravitas and legitimacy to the proceedings. The absence of the CJI from this important bench, therefore, raises questions about whether the court’s decision-making process was fully equipped to address the implications of the matter at hand.

At the heart of this issue lies a broader question about whether personal biases and judicial conscience should ever influence court decisions. Under the rule of law, judges are expected to set aside their personal beliefs and prejudices when rendering a verdict. This is crucial in ensuring that justice is applied impartially
and objectively, without favour or prejudice.

In the case of Chief Justice Khanna, his decision to recuse himself was motivated by a desire to avoid any appearance of bias due to his previous involvement with the matter. On one hand, this could be seen as an exercise in caution to uphold the principle of impartiality. On the other hand, it raises the question of whether a judge’s personal conscience should dictate their involvement in a case, particularly when the subject of the case holds such far-reaching consequences for the functioning of the Indian state.

In the larger context of judicial independence, personal beliefs should ideally play no role in the adjudication of cases. Judges are expected to apply the law in accordance with constitutional principles and legal precedents, without allowing their own views to shape their decisions. This expectation is rooted in the understanding that the judiciary, as a branch of government, must remain independent from both
political pressures and personal convictions. The rule of law requires that judges apply legal standards, not personal preferences, to resolve disputes. If a judge’s personal beliefs or biases were allowed to influence their decisions, the credibility of the judiciary would be severely undermined. The public’s trust in the judicial system depends on the belief that decisions are made based on law, facts, and objective reasoning, rather than personal inclinations or predispositions.

However, the notion that judges should entirely remove themselves from cases where their conscience is involved is not always straightforward. In certain instances, it may be difficult for a judge to entirely dissociate their understanding of a matter from their personal values or beliefs, particularly in cases that touch on sensitive political or social issues. This is where the concept of judicial self-restraint and judicial
recusal becomes important. Judges must be vigilant in recognizing when their personal involvement might undermine the appearance of impartiality, and in those cases, recusal may be necessary. The question, then, is not whether personal beliefs should influence judicial decisions, but rather whether judges are able to recognize when their involvement in a case could compromise the impartiality of the decision-making
process.

At the same time, it is important to consider the role of the Chief Justice of India in this particular case. The CJI holds a unique position in the Indian judicial system, not only as the head of the Supreme Court but also as a key figure in the administration of justice. The CJI plays a pivotal role in shaping the direction of the court and in setting its agenda. Given the high stakes involved in cases that challenge the executive’s reach into the functioning of independent bodies like the Election Commission, the absence of the CJI
from the bench could be seen as a missed opportunity for the judiciary to exercise its authority and
reinforce its independence. The fact that the petitioners raised no objection to the CJI continuing to hear the case further complicates the issue. This suggests that the petitioners did not perceive any conflict of interest, and they may have viewed the CJI’s involvement as crucial to ensuring that the matter was treated with the gravity it deserved.

The decision by Chief Justice Khanna to recuse himself raises an important point about judicial accountability. While judges must maintain their impartiality, they also have an obligation to ensure that
their actions do not inadvertently compromise the integrity of the legal process. The challenge lies in finding a balance between judicial independence, the appearance of impartiality, and the need for the judiciary to address matters of constitutional importance with full authority. In this case, it may be argued that the CJI’s involvement in the matter would have sent a stronger signal about the judiciary’s commitment to defending the Constitution and upholding democratic principles, especially in the face of executive encroachment.