The principle of ‘real likelihood of bias‘ has now taken a tilt to ‘real danger of bias’ and ‘suspicion of bias’ [(2004) 8 SCC 788]. Theatrics of Learned Senior Counsels? “Difficult to say for sure. But deep within, don’t we all understand” [(2014) 8 SCC 470]. No one can suppose, Hon’ble Justice Dave could be, in the remotest degree, influenced by the interest he had in the NJAC. The maxim ‘NO MAN IS TO BE A JUDGE IN HIS OWN CAUSE’ should not be held sacred, especially for Judges of Supreme Court. Recusals have become far too common though. Judiciary is well and truly under attack. Here is an illustrative list of Recusants of SC, who have retired in last half a decade.

Indian Courts have consistently adopted test of ‘real likelihood’ to determine bias [Manak Lal v. Dr. Prem Chand Singhvi, 1957 SCC OnLine SC 10; Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India, (1987) 4 SCC 611; Rattan Lal Sharma v. Managing Committee, Dr. Hari Ram (Co-Education) Higher Secondary School, (1993) 4 SCC 10; S. Parthasarathi v. State of AP, (1974) 3 SCC 459; SK Golap v. Bhuban Chandra Panda, 1990 SCC OnLine Cal 264; G.N. Nayak v Goa University, (2002) 2 SCC 712; Central Organisation for Railway Electrification v. ECI SPIC SMO MCML (JV) A Joint Venture Co., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3219]. This clearly appears to be a case of mere suspicion of bias.

– Justice Hrishikesh Roy, Krishnadatt Awasthy v. State of Madhya Pradesh, [Civil Appeal No. 4806 of 2011] decided on 29.01.2025.