Archive · 21 Aug 2026
Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Recusal Plea Over Personal Conflict
An advocate asked a judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court to stop hearing a case.
The advocate said he had a personal conflict with the judge.
The judge said this was not enough reason to change the bench.
The court explained that people cannot choose a judge they think will be more favorable.
Doing that could weaken trust in the courts.
The court also said a lawyer needs clear instructions from the client to make such a request.
Recusal can still be appropriate when there is a real conflict, such as a close family relationship or a judge’s prior role in the same dispute.
The application was dismissed because the court found no such conflict.
Justice Ravi Cheemalapati dismissed an advocate’s request that he recuse himself from a writ petition.
The court ruled that personal differences between a lawyer and judge do not alone justify recusal.
It warned that casual recusal requests could enable “forum shopping” and “bench hunting.”
The court said lawyers cannot seek recusal on personal grounds without explicit instructions from their clients.
It recognized that specific, verifiable conflicts of interest may justify recusal, but found none in this case.
- Who
- Justice Ravi Cheemalapati of the Andhra Pradesh High Court and an advocate who sought the judge’s recusal.
- What
- The court dismissed a recusal application and ruled that personal differences or perceived hostility are not sufficient grounds to change a judge.
- When
- The ruling was issued on August 19; the advocate said he had approached the advocate-general in March and filed an in-house complaint on June 16.
- Where
- The Andhra Pradesh High Court.
- Why
- The court said allowing recusal requests without cogent and reasonable grounds could permit forum shopping, undermine judicial independence, and reduce public confidence in the justice system.
Advocate’s Position
Court’s Position
Whether the judge should recuse himself
Advocate’s Position
The advocate claimed a personal conflict with the presiding judge could affect his ability to represent the petitioner fearlessly and prejudice the petitioner’s constitutional rights.
Court’s Position
The court held that personal differences, alleged hostility, or a perception that a judge is strict or unfavorable do not independently justify recusal.
Who may request recusal
Advocate’s Position
The advocate filed the request through an affidavit describing the alleged conflict and related complaints.
Court’s Position
The court said a lawyer cannot make a personal recusal request through their own affidavit without explicit instructions or verification from the client.
Effect on the justice system
Advocate’s Position
The advocate argued that the alleged conflict could interfere with the petitioner’s rights under Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Constitution of India.
Court’s Position
The court warned that granting such requests casually could allow litigants to select benches, amounting to forum shopping or bench hunting and threatening judicial independence.
- Judge
- Justice Ravi Cheemalapati
- Application
- A request for the judge’s recusal and for the matter to be assigned to another bench
- Court’s decision
- The application was dismissed as misconceived and without merit
- Required authority
- The court said a lawyer needs explicit client instructions to seek recusal on personal grounds
- Potential grounds for recusal
- Specific, verifiable conflicts, including a close family relationship or prior representation in the particular dispute
- Related precedent
- The court relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in R K Anand vs Registrar, Delhi High Court
- Other proceedings cited
- The advocate’s complaint referred to seven cases; six were dismissed and one was disposed of with costs