In 1959, the International Congress on Jurists met at Delhi. The participants included 185 judges, besides lawyers and law teachers from 53 countries. In that conference, then prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru observed that for the Rule of Law “there should be independent people, judges to administer that law, otherwise the law may be used and exploited in the interests, not of the law, but of other interests”. The International Commission of Jurists held another conference at Bangkok in 1965 and emphasised that mere legality of law was not enough, and that broader conceptions of justice must prevail to protect rights of the individual and for that, the judiciary must be kept free from the influence of the executive.The law is not satisfied by hard work or speedy trial alone. In the famous ADM Jabalpur case on habeas corpus, the legendary Justice H.R. Khanna took pains to stress the supremacy of “rule of law” which includes not only speedy trial but also fair trial. Thus, on the shoulders of a judge rests not only the onerous burden of delivering justice but also such justice which is both speedy and fair. In the pursuit of justice, the role of the bar is as significant as that of a judge. It holds the key to promotion of the justice delivery system, and it must be said to its credit that like the vigilant role played by the Bar Council, the Law Society in England, and the American Bar Association, the Indian Bar too has by and large not failed in flagging issues of appointments and transfers of judges. But, perhaps it needs to raise them more vigorously and collectively.Recently, a case before the Delhi high court, allegedly involving Arvind Kejriwal of the Aam Aadmi Party in a liquor scam, grabbed the headlines. Kejriwal sought recusal of the concerned judge from hearing his case citing as many as 10 reasons which he argued raised apprehension in his mind that he would not get justice from that court. He inter-alia alleged that the judge has been attending functions organised by a political party having an ideology completely different from the ideology of the political party of which he is the supremo. He also raised an accusing finger at the family members of the judge, and openly expressed his lack of faith in the judge. In such a case, what is expected of a judge? Should the judge recuse from the case or continue to hear the same, notwithstanding the allegations. A judge is the one who is honest, and through their conduct and pen displays it. Even their family interests should not be such as to create any doubt over their overall judicial conduct. They must never have any personal or family interest which may create even a shadow of doubt or apprehension over their judicial honesty, integrity and independence. The presence of any such interest is likely to cause apprehension in the mind of the litigant. It is this apprehension, howsoever misplaced or ill-founded, which is material. In such a case what is expected of a judge is to put it in their judgment that though the apprehension is unfounded, or not justified, they would prefer not to hear and decide the case. Such an approach would be in keeping with the adage ‘justice should not only be done’ but should also be seen to be done. Unfortunately, in the case of Kejriwal, the judge has followed the wrong track. She has declined to recuse from the case. Her decision has neither advanced the cause of justice, nor the image of a judge. A citizen is a constitution-maker. They have the right to demand respect for “constitutional morality” and to protest against what in their considered opinion is an unfair game. Public accountability cannot be ignored. Lord Denning in his celebrated book The Discipline of Law writes that judges must be sensitive, and that nothing rankles deep in the human heart than nagging sense of injustice. Unfortunately, the order in the matter of Arvind Kejriwal has failed the acid test. Long time ago during the time of Chief Justice Verma, the Rules of Conduct of the Judges were framed and circulated to each high court. Unfortunately, in Kejriwal’s case, those Rules have also been made to eat dust. The consumer of justice is at a loss and has been for a long time. There were times when the justice delivery system was so strong that midnight court was held to grant bail. Times have changed. Not very long ago, to the dismay of the consumer, he saw a Chief Justice presiding over a bench deciding his own personal matter. Recently, we witnessed courts hearing a simple bail application for days and days together revolving around only a speech delivered and while delivering the judgment forgetting that bail and not jail is the rule. We also witnessed a highly respected teacher being publicly humiliated for no offence found to have been committed by him. Where have the words of the Supreme Court in the Minerva Mills case – “Egalitarian era can be ushered in only through the discipline of fundamental rights” – gone? Four sitting judges of the Supreme Court had to hold a press conference pleading for the survival of the judiciary. Let it not be forgotten that only the actions of the just smell sweet and blossom in their dust. Rekha Sharma is a former judge of the Delhi high court.