Judicial impropriety allegations, roster control and recusal norms affect public trust in the judiciary. Discuss.

The Supreme Court's own Restatement of Values of Judicial Life (1997) insists that justice must not only be done but be seen to be done [1]. Public trust therefore turns on visible process — how a case is listed and who hears it — as much as on the correctness of the verdict.

Allegations of impropriety and conflict of interest

• In September 2026, the Lawyers Association for Constitution sought recall of an interim order in the appeal of the Noida DM, who is the CEC's daughter, citing reports of a family link between the presiding judge and ECI counsel [2].
• Such claims remain unverified allegations, not court findings [2]; yet reputational damage precedes verification, because the institution has no quick way to publicly answer them.

Roster control

• The CJI is "master of the roster", and listing is executed by the Registry without published reasons.
• The objection here is of "improper listing" before a Bench not holding the roster for that category of petitions [2]. Unexplained discretion over who hears what invites suspicion even where none is warranted.

Recusal norms

• India has no statute or rule codifying recusal; the judge whose impartiality is questioned decides the question himself, with no appeal.
• The 1997 Restatement only advises judges against hearing matters involving relatives or close associates [1]. A test resting on appearances cannot credibly be applied by the person being viewed.

Spillover to other institutions

• The same Bench split on referring the challenge to the CEC/EC Act, 2023 to a larger Bench, leaving it with the CJI [2].
• Since Anoop Baranwal (2023) grounded ECI independence in an insulated appointment process [3], and the Act gives the Executive a majority on the Selection Committee [4], perceived judicial hesitation erodes trust in two constitutional institutions at once.

Trust is sustained by transparent procedure rather than assertions of integrity. Subject-wise published rosters with automated listing, written recusal guidelines requiring reasoned orders, and a strengthened in-house procedure would let the judiciary answer doubts institutionally — realising the Restatement's own promise that impartiality must be visible.