Recusal

The Constitution vests a lot of power and certain amount of immunity in judges. Fairness and impartiality are the fundamental qualities to be possessed by a judge. Once it appears to the judge that he cannot deliver justice in an impartial manner, ethically he is expected to recuse. The right to recuse is given to the discretion of the judges. But the question that arises is whether such choices of significance be left to the prerogative of the individual judges. 

• 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.

In a 1980 appeal against Shell and BP, in England, in which “the registrar of civil appeals was unable to assemble three judges who had no shares in either defendant.” Invariably, therefore, when a judge owns shares in one of the litigants what we expect is disclosure of the fact, and if neither party objects one might think it’s acceptable for the judge to hear the case. But in the absence of a well-defined rule that helps establish a basic standard, a decision of this kind can prove troubling somewhere down the line.

Independence and impartiality are the twin pillars without which justice cannot stand,
and the purpose of recusal is to underpin them - Sir Stephen Sedley

Meritocracy is myth

Merit is simply a good quality or feature that deserves to be praised. Merit and justice play a crucial role in ethical theory and political philosophy. Some view justice as allocation according to merit. Others view justice as based on criteria of its own, and take merit and justice as two independent values. Merit and justice are strongly linked in the human perception of social order. Spoils system, also called patronage system, is a practice in which the political party winning an election rewards its campaign workers and other active supporters by appointment to government posts and by other favors. A change in party control of government necessarily brings new officials to high positions carrying political responsibility, but the spoils system extends personnel turnover down to routine or subordinate governmental positions. Although spoils system is an American political term, it is common in many other countries as well.

• The merit of all things lies in their difficulty. Everyone agrees that justice must be in accordance with some kind of merit.
• Meritocracy has been presented as a means of breaking down established hierarchies of privilege.
• Merit systems is an uniform and impersonal employment and advancement policy based on evaluation of abilities and achievements, instead of on favoritism or politics.
• It is not hard to see why people find the idea of meritocracy appealing. It carries with it the idea of moving beyond where you start in life, of creative flourishing and fairness. But all the evidence shows it is a smokescreen for inequality. 
• The fact is, meritocracy is a myth. Social systems that reward through wealth, and which increase inequality, don’t aid social mobility, and people pass on their privilege to their children.
• Meritocracy contradicts the principle of equality, no less than any other oligarchy. Meritocracy is the great delusion that ingrains inequality.
• Our leaders sell meritocracy as a utopian system of fairness, but merit has been manipulated to privilege the wealthy. Merit is a malleable and easily manipulated term. 
• Meritocracy was a term of abuse, describing a ludicrously unequal state that surely no one would want to live in. Why would you want to give more prizes to the already prodigiously gifted? Instead we should think about how to give those doing difficult or unattractive jobs more leisure time, and share out wealth more equitably so that we all have a better quality of life and a happier society. 

It is better to be an eminent person than to be a prominent person.

Unequal growth is a threat to democracy. Meritocracy that promotes unequal growth and is also in conflict with the 'Preamble to the Constitution of India' which confers and guarantees equality of status and of opportunity; and to promote among them all. The sooner we disband this myth called 'meritocracy' and replace with widely acceptable, efficient and equitable criterion for distribution of scarce resources and facilities, it is better.