Introduction

The Indian Judiciary, a significant part of the democracy, has the sacred duty to ensure justice and uphold the rule of law. According to the doctrine of natural justice, the judiciary must be impartial and independent, exercise its authority without any fear of rebuke or condemnation, uphold this fundamental principle, and ensure that judges are completely free from external influences to preserve the institution's sanctity. However, biases and impartiality, whether conscious or unconscious, are bound to exist wherever the human element is involved. No individual can be free from personal biases and prejudice, which refers to preconceived notions about a particular group based on caste, religion, region, gender, etc. that they hold.

India has witnessed different forms of discrimination based on gender, caste, religion, etc. throughout its history, which is also reflected in the judgments passed by the Indian Judges. The foremost reason behind this kind of bias can be ascribed to the social conditioning of a judge’s mind. Judges, like all other people in society, are influenced by values prevalent in society which get automatically embodied in their minds through their upbringing and interaction with the environment. These values can be positive such as respect for women or elders, humanity, generosity, etc. or negative such as gender stereotypes, belief in the age-old caste system, prejudice against people belonging to the LGBTQIA+ community or radical partisanship. Other possible reasons for biases may include political pressure, lack of representation of marginalized sections of society in the judiciary, the influence of social media, lack of accountability of judges due to the overwhelming power vested in the office and cultural or geographical influences.

Prejudice and Personal Bias Present in the Indian Judiciary

A judge is expected to deliver judgments solely on the facts and evidence relevant to the case. However, the Indian judiciary is full of instances where a judge’s preconceived notions influence their impartiality, leading them to biased verdicts. The prejudice based on caste, religion, class, gender, etc. has severely affected the neutrality of the judge and thus, limited the scope of objectivity. Several prevalent biases that could stern from the influence of social construction on cognition are:

1. Gender Bias:

Indian society has been a patriarchal one since time immemorial, where males are considered to be the superior gender with the ability to dominate the female sex and their corporal autonomy. The Indian legal system is replete with myths and misconceptions regarding the social and economic realities of various genders, as well as stereotypes concerning their behaviour and duties.

Several Supreme Court and High Court judges have been severely criticised for making misogynistic comments and projecting social gender stereotypes. As in the case of Rakesh B v. State of Karnataka, Justice S. Dixit recounts the ideal conduct of a raped Indian woman. In this case, while granting anticipatory bail to the accused, Justice Dixit remarked that it was wrong on the part of the victim to go to her officer at 11:00 p.m. when it was not required and doubted how a woman could fall asleep after she was ravished.

There have been various cases in which judges of lower courts and sometimes even higher courts asked the person accused of sexual harassment to marry the victim or tie a ‘Rakhi’.

There have been instances where judges while listening to divorce cases, have been found quoting various statements, such as Indian women should be like ‘Sita’ who should follow her husband’s every instruction, and “A wife should be minister in purpose, slave in duty, Lakshmi in appearance, Earth in patience, mother in love, and prostitute in bed.”

It is pertinent to note that such statements and judgments made by the bearers of justice are disgraceful and hamper the confidence placed in them by the general public.

2. Caste-based Bias:

Many judgments, mostly in the lower courts, have been severely criticized for reflecting caste bias.

Indian Judiciary is replete with such cases as the infamous Bhanwari Devi Case, in which a Dalit woman was raped by five men belonging to the dominant Gurjar caste in front of her husband. The delay and obstructions in the trial, due to the influence of upper caste people and also the reluctance of witnesses to testify against the so-called powerful people, show how caste can influence judicial proceedings. Moreover, during the trials, the judge quoted that “an upper-caste man would not rape a lower-caste woman.”

There has been a delay in proceedings and lack of harsh punishments to prevent justice from being imparted such as in the Hathras Gang Rape Case, where a Dalit woman was brutally gang-raped by a few upper caste men and flogging of four Dalit men by upper caste men for pulling off the skin of a cow in Una, Gujarat, etc.

In the Bathani Tola Massacre, 21 Dalits, including women and children, were massacred by Ranvir Sena, an influential and politically backed private army of upper-caste landlords in Bhojpur district of Bihar. The lower court pronounced death sentence to 16 members of Ranvir Sena which was later overturned by the Patna High Court. It was alleged that the acquittal was a result of the caste bias of judges, the dominant nature of the Ranvir Sena and its political backing.

Apart from these cases, there are a large number of reported as well as unreported cases where a marginalized group is denied their right to a speedy trial and impartial justice.

3. Religion-based bias:

Religion has been a guiding factor of society in India since ancient times. Dharamshastras, Smritis, Shrutis, etc., were the source of law in ancient India before the introduction of Islamic Sharia law in the medieval period by the rulers of Delhi Sultanate and Mughal Empire.

The influence of religion on the judiciary in India has remained a long-standing debate. Such as in the Babri Masjid demolition case, it was alleged that the court surrendered to the demands of the majority, despite the court’s acknowledgement that the demolition of the Babri Masjid in 1992 by a Hindu mob was illegal. Similarly, in Gujarat Riot cases, the judiciary was criticized for favouring the majority’s views.

In another case of massacre in Hashimpura in 1987, 42 Muslim men were killed by the Provincial Armed Constabulary (PAC) personnel. The lower court acquitted 16 policemen due to insufficient evidence. However, the Delhi High Court overturned acquittals and sentenced life imprisonment to PAC personnel in 2018, after 31 years of the massacre.

Differences in opinions of judges related to matters like cow slaughter and beef-eating of various High Courts have been observed which shows how religious values of a judge can influence the decision-making. For instance, Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav of Allahabad HC while listening to a case of consumption of beef, remarked that cow, being a part and parcel of Indian Culture, should not be consumed and its consumption cannot be treated as a fundamental right. Whereas, The Madras High Court practiced non-interference when a writ of mandamus was filed in the K Gopinath Case to direct the respondents to remove their beef shops around the Palani Temple Hills.

These incidents highlight the intricate relationship between politics, religion, and the law in India.

Recusal of Judges

According to the Black’s Law Dictionary, “Recusal is the specific removal of oneself from a position of authority as a judge or policymaker because of a conflict of interest.” Recusal of a judge is a practice through which the judge distances himself or herself from the legal proceedings of a particular case due to the possibility of bias or impartiality in the judgment.

In India, there are no codified rules for the procedure of recusal of judges. However, the principles of natural justice mentioned in the constitution of India under Articles 14 and 21 state that all individuals irrespective of caste, class, colour, gender, etc. must be treated equally before the law and thus, no person can be discriminated inside or outside the court. Also, the oath administered to the judges during their appointment, i.e. a judge would “perform the duties of my office without fear or favour, affection or ill-will” ensures neutrality and objectivity, thereby, upholding the trust of the citizens in Indian Judiciary.

Recusal can be either voluntary (suo sponte) i.e. the judge himself decides to recuse from the case or when one of the parties requests the judge to recuse due to judge’s personal interest or possibility of bias. In India, only the former is allowed, and there is no procedure through which a judge can be asked or forced to recuse from any case. There have been various instances in which the judges have automatically recused themselves from a case due to a conflict of interest.

The first case of recusal in India dates back to 1957, when in Manak Lal v. Dr. Prem Chand Singhvi, the plaintiff, who was a lawyer, objected the hearing of his case in the Bar Council Tribunal by the Chairman, who was the lawyer of the defendant in a related case before, highlighting the chances of biased proceedings. The honourable Supreme Court held that the chairman should recuse himself from the case due to perceived bias.

Other prominent cases include the Krishna River Water Dispute Case in which Justice U.U. Lalit voluntarily recused himself because he has represented Andhra Pradesh, one of the parties to the case, while he was a lawyer; Hathras Gang Rape case in which Justice Ashok Bhushan recused himself, stating that his family has connections with the state of Uttar Pradesh, which was the defendant in the case.

There have been a few instances where the judges do not state the reason for their recusal, sparking controversies and highlighting the chances of possible personal threats to judges, especially in high-profile cases. In 2018, Justice Khanwilkar recused himself from the Hadiya Case, a high-profile case, without stating any reason. In a similar move, Justice U.U. Lalit recused from hearing a petition challenging the appointment of M. Nageshwar Rao as an interim CBI chief.

India does not have any formal procedure for recusal of a judge. Therefore, this has led to widespread controversies where the judge refuses to recuse and is thus accused of favouring any of the parties to the case. There have been various such controversies, such as during the hearing of the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Assn. v. Union of India, where Justice Khehar refused to entertain the plea demanding his recusal as he was involved in the collegium system.

In conclusion, the Indian Legal system does not have a well-established procedure laid down in the statute to recuse judges in cases of bias or personal benefits arising in a case.

Conclusion

Dr. B.R. Ambedkar once remarked, “Independence of the judiciary is the very soul of the Constitution. It is essential for the rule of law and the protection of fundamental rights.” 

This statement reflects the importance of the Indian judiciary's independence and impartiality, which are its hallmarks. These characteristics contribute to the faith that citizens of India have in it.

The judiciary, as the vanguard of justice and equality, bears the responsibility of fostering affirmative and progressive transformation within Indian society. But its credibility is put to the test when bias and prejudice come in the way of delivering justice. There have been various instances, especially at the lower courts, where biases held by the judges have paved the way for impartial and unjust decisions, hampering the confidence posed by the public in the judiciary. Still, the judiciary is a powerful tool for all the classes, castes, religions, regions, etc., to fight for their rights. By enhancing ethical standards and the establishment of procedural safeguards, we can strive for a judiciary that not only interprets the law but also embodies the principles of fairness and equality for everyone.

.    .    .

References: 

• Sri Rakesh B v. State of Karnataka (2020)
• Aparna Bhat and others v State of Madhya Pradesh and others AIR 2021 SC 1492.
• Atri, Charu. "A Critical Examination of Judicial Stereotyping and Gender Bias in Indian Courts." Indian Journal of Integrated Research in Law, vol. 2, no. 3, May-June 2022, pp. 1-8.
• Vishakha v. State of Rajasthan, (1997) 6 SCC 241.
• Satyama Dubey and Othr. v. Union of India and Othr. (2020) 10 SCC 694.
• State of Bihar v. Ajay Singh 2012 SCC OnLine Pat 375.
• M. Siddiq (Ram Janmabhumi Temple-5 J.) v. Suresh Das, (2020) 1 SCC 1.
• Bajpai, G. S. “Transfer of Criminal Matters: Is It Ensuring Fair Trial?” JILI, vol. 61, EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., 2019, pp. 391–93.
• K. Gopinath v. The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and
  Charitable Endowments, 2016 SCC OnLine Mad 1767.
• Kumar, Anoop. "Impact of Religious Values in The Adjudication Process." Bennett Journal Of Legal Studies 4.1 (2023): 1-10.
• Manak Lal v. Dr. Prem Chand Singhvi, AIR 1957 SC 425.
• Shahin Jahan v. Asokan K.M. and Othr. (2018) 16 SCC 368
• Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Assn. v. Union of India, (2016) 5 SCC 808