O
n March 20, Chief Justice of India Surya Kant stepped away from hearing a batch of petitions challenging the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023. The legislation replaced the Chief Justice of India with a Union Minister, on the selection panel for appointing the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners, superseding the Supreme Court’s 2023 interim arrangement. “I will be accused of conflict of interest,” the CJI remarked before directing that the case be listed on April 7 before a bench comprising judges not in the line of succession to the office of the Chief Justice. While the order directs the Registry to list the case before a Bench to be earmarked separately by the Chief Justice of India, his oral remarks while hearing the case, Dr. Jaya Thakur v. Union of India (2024), raises questions that will linger long after the Bench is constituted. CJI Surya Kant is the second CJI to recuse from hearing the case. Earlier, CJI Sanjiv Khanna recused from hearing the same case in 2024.
The doctrine and its foundations
Recusal flows from one of the oldest maxims of natural justice: nemo judex in causa sua — no one shall be a judge in their own cause. In its modern form, the Supreme Court has moved from strict automatic disqualification for pecuniary interest, as in Manak Lal v. Dr. Prem Chand (1957), toward a standard of real likelihood of bias. Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India (1987) refined this further, holding that a reasonable apprehension of bias, and not merely a remote possibility, justifies withdrawal.
