- Judges recuse themselves when they take no part in deciding cases that they would otherwise help decide. The judges to recuse themselves from cases where the judge has a financial interest in the case's outcome or where there is otherwise a strong possibility that the judge's decision will be biased.
- Any party in a lawsuit may request that a judge recuse him or herself.
- This question is the pondering of circumstances where an act of recusal becomes a contravention to that judge’s legal responsibility and moral duty to hear a matter and deliver unprejudiced justice.
- Also, are the judges accountable for explaining the reasons for recusal to the concerned parties?
- The professional ethics behind recusal of a judge has to do with the opacity about the reasons as to which the recusal has happened. Since India is a liberal democracy, the citizens expect accountability from public servants. By not giving reasons to recusal the judge is putting herself under speculation by the public.
- If a judge finds out that his brother/ sister judge recused for a specific reason, there could be an inclination from the new judge to give a favorable verdict for the party in whose favor the other judge recused.
- Recusal is not an instance where the judiciary is under threat as the aggrieved party would like to know why a judge has recused.
- Judges must give their reasons in writing for recusing themselves from specific cases.
- There has to be a requirement of statutory obligation on the judges to inform the litigants as to why there is a decision to recuse from hearing. Recusal should be used sparingly like the emergency provision in the Indian Constitution.
and the purpose of recusal is to underpin them - Sir Stephen Sedley