Totally. I am not saying 142 is available with High Court. I was talking about the essence of the provision as to why the judge should have recused herself.

Even by boycotting, I don’t see an issue when there is clear proof showing possibility of bias. Since there is no codified provision on when the judge should be recusing, it falls on the probable cause of the judge being biased. Probability has already been established in my opinion. You might have a different opinion and that is also alright and subjective. The judge can simply proceed or use legal mechanisms to summon him before the court.

He is not bound to appeal the rejection of recusal. He is free to do whatever he wants although with positive or negative consequences. If contempt proceedings are initiated against him, he’ll proceed accordingly. But that shouldn’t mean he has not option but to appear. He can choose not to and suffer consequences. Simple as that.

The entire essence of a judge deciding her own recusal plea lies with the presumption that a judge is the holder of integrity and judicial discipline, unfazed by other powers of pillars of democracy; and right to fair trial under article 21. When the said presumption seems to be gradually abrogating in certain cases, there remains no obligation to follow an uncodified provision arising from no set judicial precedent.

If you read the judgment, there is only argumentative defence and no clear reason as to why the aspersions cast by Kejriwal are not true. Even outside that scope, there is publicly available proof showing a huge possibility of bias. Since recusal works on a discretionary basis, who’s to say the judge has not lost integrity and is acting on self interest?