If it is reasonable to think that a Supreme Court justice can be bought so cheap, the nation is in deeper trouble than I had imagined.” The recent recusal by Justice Raveendran from the RIL-RNRL case reminds one of the stirring words of Justice Antonin Scalia. He refused to recuse himself in a case where the former Vice-President Dick Cheney’s actions were being questioned, although he had earlier gone on a duck-hunting trip with a group which included Cheney.

There has been a spate of recusals from the Indian Supreme Court. What is puzzling is that Justice Raveendran, whose judgements reflect a rare combination of depth and simplicity, has in the same case and within few days offered two different standards for recusal of a judge. At the beginning of the RIL-RNRL dispute, Raveendran offered to recuse himself since he held shares in RIL and RNRL and counsel did not object to his presence. Within a few days after the hearing commenced, Raveendran recused himself because his daughter was working in a law firm which was advising (as opposed to the daughter herself) RIL in a global acquisition completely unrelated to the dispute before the court. And to add to the confusion, Justice Kapadia offered to recuse himself on account of holding shares in Sterlite when a case related to that company came up before him, while Justice Katju recused himself since his wife held shares in RIL when the RIL-NTPC dispute came up before him.

When faced with a conflict of interest what standard should judges across the country follow? Should judges recuse, or should they offer to recuse?  The Supreme Court precedent and past history offer a clear guide.

... contd.