Judicial Recusals Spark Debate on Transparency in Indian Courts

Quick Summary

• Recent judicial recusals in india, including from the Supreme Court, have raised concerns about clarity in judges’ reasons for stepping aside from cases.
• Justice M.M. Sundresh of the Supreme court suddenly recused himself on August 26, 2025, after over a year of adjournments regarding activist Surendra Gadling’s bail plea in connection to a case from 2016. No reason was provided for his recusal.
• The case has been reassigned to another bench led by Justice J.K. Maheshwari and is further delayed, now scheduled for hearing on September 17, 2025.
• Two exceptions recently highlighted transparency: an NCLAT judicial member cited external interference as his reason for recusal; and a Madhya Pradesh High Court judge noted attempted influence by a BJP MLA regarding an illegal mining case.
• Generally, judicial recusals are brief with no clarification due to absence of formal rules governing the process.
• Legal experts like former Justice Kurian Joseph advocate setting rules on judges disclosing reasons for recusals to maintain fairness and remove perceptions of bias.

Indian Opinion analysis

Judicial recusals without disclosed reasons present challenges to transparency-a core principle of justice. While some instances show strides towards openness in recent decisions at lower courts or tribunals (e.g., citing political interference), the lack of consistency underscores the absence of formal frameworks governing such situations across India’s judiciary.

Delays caused by unexplained withdrawals can undermine justice delivery through prolonged proceedings that disproportionately affect marginalized communities-like activist Surendra Gadling’s continued incarceration since 2018 despite pending bail pleas. Formulating formal rules or guidelines requiring basic reasoning behind recusals may reinforce public confidence while upholding constitutional accountability within India’s judiciary system.

For further details: Link