Arvind Kejriwal’s recusal plea before Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma has reignited debate over a key judicial mechanism — the doctrine of recusal. Seeking the judge’s withdrawal from the Delhi excise policy case on grounds of apprehensions of bias, Kejriwal was met with a firm refusal. The Court held that vague allegations could not justify recusal and cautioned against allowing litigants to choose their bench. Kejriwal responded by boycotting court proceedings, turning a procedural dispute into a public controversy.

Around the same time, a very different recusal unfolded in Alchemist Asset Reconstruction Company Pvt. Ltd. v. Raju Chappakal Pappu, in which Justice KV Viswanathan recused himself after the judgment had been reserved. The two-page order noted that it had come to the judge’s attention that he had, during his 35-year career at the Bar, represented a party in connected insolvency proceedings. What it did not explain was how this conflict surfaced so late — whether through judicial recollection, institutional screening, or party disclosure. This silence points to a persistent “disclosure gap” in how recusals are recorded and reasoned in India.

Part of the explanation lies in the nature of........

© hindustantimes