'Justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done.' Examine this statement with reference to judicial recusal.

Recusal means a judge withdraws from a case where a fair-minded observer might suspect bias. It applies the natural-justice maxim nemo judex in causa sua (no one should be a judge in their own cause). The Supreme Court's Restatement of Values of Judicial Life (1997) puts the principle in plain words: justice must not merely be done but must be seen to be done [2]. Recusal protects public trust, but because no written rule governs it, how it is used depends on each judge.

Recusal as the visible face of impartiality

• Perceived bias, not actual bias: in October 2026, Justice Sheel Nagu stepped aside from Punjab's appeal against a High Court order directing a CBI probe linked to the CM's office. He had been Chief Justice of that same High Court [1].
• Institutional closeness: he had no personal stake. Still, deciding whether his former court had erred could look like loyalty to it. Recusing removed that doubt before it arose [1].
• Legitimacy in politically sensitive cases: when a case touches the executive and Centre–State friction, the neutral look of the Bench is part of what makes the final verdict acceptable.

Limits of conscience-based recusal

• No codified test: India has no statute on recusal. In the NJAC case (2015), Justice Khehar held that the decision belongs to the judge alone [3].
• Opacity: judges often give no reasons, so the public cannot check whether similar cases are treated alike.
• Delay: each recusal sends the matter back to the CJI, as Master of the Roster, to reassign it. Meanwhile, the probe here remains uncertain [1].
• Bench-hunting: if recusal comes too easily, litigants can raise doubts just to get a friendlier Bench. Justice Khehar held that a litigant's mere apprehension of bias is not enough to force a judge out [3].

Way forward

• Add a short section to the Restatement listing standard triggers, such as former HC Chief Justices hearing appeals from that HC.
• Ask judges to record a one-line reason when they recuse.
• Set a time limit for relisting reassigned cases.

Recusal shows that public confidence in the judiciary depends on fair procedure as much as on correct verdicts. Clear, transparent norms that leave the final call with the judge would make it a dependable safeguard instead of an occasional gesture. This would strengthen the impartiality that Article 14 and the Preamble's promise of justice require.