In Brief
The Supreme Court addressed a recusal application against Justice Arun Mishra who had delivered a prior three-judge bench judgment whose correctness was now to be examined by a five-judge Constitution Bench of which he was a member. Respondents argued his earlier opinion created bias and predisposition. The Court held that a judge's prior judicial pronouncement on legal issues does not disqualify participation in a larger bench reconsidering that judgment. The Court traced historical practice showing judges have regularly participated in larger benches reviewing their earlier decisions. The judgment emphasizes judicial independence, that litigants cannot choose benches through recusal tactics, and that acceding to such pressure would undermine the judiciary itself.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.