In a rare case in Indian jurisprudence, almost 16 judges — right from the Supreme Court, High Courts, Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), and District Courts — have recused themselves from hearing the case of Indian Forest Service (IFS) officer of the Uttarakhand cadre, Mr Sanjiv Chaturvedi. Mr Chaturvedi is known for exposing malfunctioning and misuse of authority and alleged corruption in governance at AIIMS, Haryana, and the Uttarakhand forest departments where he served.
His legal battles on service matters, central deputations, appraisal reports, and contempt proceedings against CAT members have triggered this series of withdrawals without assigning any reasons, until the Chief Justice of Uttarakhand High Court salvaged the situation (after Uttarakhand High Court Justice Alok Verma stepped aside from a contempt petition, marking the 16th instance) by directing the registry to put up the case before the bench headed by him.
This series of recusals is not only unprecedented but surprising and has become a talk of the town among civil servants and in the media. In the past, several judges have recused themselves from hearing cases where they have previously stood as advocates or in cases where some linkage existed in any manner with the case.
Common sense demands that this issue must be debated in the public interest because the judiciary is the last resort to get justice against the high-handedness experienced by individuals in
the bureaucracy or at the hands of the political executive. For the last few decades, the Indian judiciary has taken proactive steps through judicial interventions to correct derailed executive functions, with quite a strong will and boldness. In the case of this officer, there appears to be no reason for bias for the judges to recuse because most of the matters relate to service matters and harassment.
This is a piquant situation for the Indian judiciary, and it must be debated and decided by the Apex Court under what circumstances a judge can recuse himself; otherwise, it should be tantamount to abandonment of the bounden duty to provide natural justice. Notwithstanding, however, the recusal is backed by the Constitution as part of ensuring natural justice as enshrined in Article 14 (Right to Equality) and Article 16 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty); only if hearing by the particular judge can infringe upon Articles 14 and 16, so as to ensure fair trials under the maxim nemo judex in causa sua (“no one should be a judge in their own cause”). The recusal prevents actual or apparent bias, encompassing personal, pecuniary, or professional conflicts. Therefore, the Honourable Supreme Court, in landmark rulings like Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India (1987), asserted that recusal safeguards public confidence in the judiciary. Further, State of West Bengal v. Association for Democratic Reforms (2021) clarified that judges must recuse if there is a reasonable apprehension of bias, but they retain discretion in deciding so, without needing to disclose detailed reasons to avoid compromising independence.
Under the Code of Civil Procedure and Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Section 479), parties can seek transfer of cases if bias is alleged, but judges initiate recusal suo motu. In administrative tribunals like CAT, governed by the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, similar principles apply, with members recusing under service rules.
This case has thrown a challenge to the legal system if it is accepted as a precedent to conveniently sidestep deciding cases against Government functionaries or whenever a judge decides to escape the burden of hearing any case. Most of the recusals in Chaturvedi’s cases, including by Supreme Court Justices Ranjan Gogoi (2013) and UU Lalit (2016), or CAT members like Harvinder Upal and B. Anand (2025), cite no reasons, fuelling speculation of external pressures or “forum shopping” by adversaries.
This pattern violates the spirit of Manaklal v. Dr Prem Chand (1957), where the Apex Court held that even a “probability” of bias vitiates proceedings. For a dogged fighter like Mr Chaturvedi, who is akin to acting as a whistleblower and is protected under the Whistleblowers Protection Act, 2014, such recusals erode Article 32’s right to constitutional remedies, potentially amounting to denial of speedy justice. Legally, while individual recusals are unassailable, their cumulative effect could invite scrutiny for systemic bias, possibly triggering in the near future public interest litigation (PIL) on judicial accountability. The case of Mr Sanjiv Chaturvedi also signifies how the system once helped him through Presidential intervention and, at the same time, bureaucracy tried to crush him for raising issues of maladministration and corruption. There are several cases where administrative members of the Central Administrative Tribunals (CATs) act as extension wings of the Government and natural justice becomes a victim. Many Secretaries do a different kind of “forum shopping” by contacting the members to thwart justice. CATs also need big reforms.There is a need for reform, and the Uttarakhand High Court Chief Justice has set the trend by issuing an administrative order to put up the case before his bench.
However, the Supreme Court needs to go for broader reforms to ensure transparency. For this, it is essential to amend judicial codes to list out non-prejudicial reasons for recusals, as recommended by the Justice JS Verma Committee (2018) on higher judiciary accountability.
The recusing judge should give a speaking order explaining why he or she is recusing and in what way hearing the case could derail natural justice.
The Law Commission of India, in its 275th Report (2018), urged digitised recusal logs to track patterns, preventing abuse. The civil society, on its part, should amplify this via PILs before the Supreme Court, seeking guidelines on recusal thresholds and penalties for frivolous withdrawals. Bar associations could advocate for ethics training on bias perceptions.
The Indian judiciary has time and again opted for self-correction, and the present Chief Justice of India, Justice Gavai, had noted in 2020 that “transparency fortifies democracy” in Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India while hearing the case on the communication blackout. Let us hope judicial self-correction is imminent.
The writer is a former Director General of the Indian Council of Forestry Research and Education (ICFRE) and Chancellor of the Forest Research Institute (FRI) University, under the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Government of India
