It refers to Justice UU Lalit recusing himself from the three-member bench of Supreme Court set up to hear writ filed against Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister who made public his charges against a Supreme Court judge. But it was a welcome initiative of Justice UU Lalit who mentioned reasons for recusal that he had earlier been a lawyer for one of the parties involved in the case.
Otherwise it is a usual practice that recusing judges do so without giving any reason for recusal. It should be made compulsory for all judges from Supreme Court to trial-courts to record reason for recusal from the case on the file. Moreover any such recusal should be informed immediately on setting up the bench or listing of such a case before a judge so that a new bench may be there for hearing without requiring any postponement of the hearing. Recusal though after giving reasons just on beginning of hearing wastes precious court-timing.
It may be recalled that a judge of Delhi High Court once recused herself from hearing a case where she herself issued notice to former President Pranab Mukerji after admitting a writ filed by some individual urging some contents of the book authored by the former President to be deleted. There have also been incidents when judges of higher courts have written to sitting Chief Justice of India about pressure and influence especially also from politicians. Making it compulsory to give reasons for recusal will prevent pressure and influence on judges.
To prevent chances of local influence, all High Court judges should be compulsorily appointed from outside their home-states.
SUBHASH CHANDRA AGRAWAL