Supreme Court Recusal in Surendra Gadling Bail Plea On 2 April 2026 , Supreme Court Justice Atul Chandurkar stepped down from a bench hearing advocate Surendra Gadling 's bail application in the 2016 Gadchiroli arson case . The bench also comprised Justice JK Maheshwari . Earlier, Justice MM Sundresh had withdrawn, prompting a reshuffle of the bench. Key Developments (Bullet Points) Justice Chandurkar recused, leaving Justice Maheshwari to continue the hearing. The Supreme Court earlier questioned the prolonged pre‑trial detention of Gadling, who has been in custody for seven years without trial. The Court sought detailed information from Maharashtra on trial delays, pending discharge applications, and the prosecution schedule. Senior Advocate Anand Grover highlighted lack of electronic evidence disclosure and absence of a permanent Public Prosecutor in the NIA court. The Court directed the appointment of a judge in the NIA court within a week and ordered better video‑conferencing facilities after repeated technical failures. Important Facts Gadling is simultaneously facing charges in the Bhima Koregaon case . He is accused under the UAPA and various sections of the Indian Penal Code for allegedly directing the arson of iron‑ore trucks from the Surjagarh mines. The prosecution claims Gadling coordinated the conspiracy, while his counsel argues that the main evidence is electronic, overlaps with the Bhima Koregaon investigation, and has not been shared with the defence. UPSC Relevance This case illustrates several themes pertinent to the UPSC syllabus: Judicial independence and recusal: The voluntary withdrawal of judges underscores the importance of impartiality in the judiciary (GS2: Polity). Criminal justice delays: The Supreme Court’s concern over prolonged under‑trial detention highlights systemic bottlenecks in India’s criminal justice system (GS2: Polity, GS3: Governance). Application of anti‑terror legislation: Use of the UAPA raises questions about civil liberties versus security (GS2: Polity, GS4: Ethics). Role of investigative agencies: The involvement of the NIA and the absence of a permanent prosecutor reflect challenges in prosecutorial capacity (GS2: Polity). Way Forward The Supreme Court has asked the Maharashtra government to submit a detailed trial‑completion plan, appoint a judge and a permanent public prosecutor in the NIA court, and ensure reliable video‑conferencing for remote hearings. Timely disclosure of electronic evidence and a clear prosecution roadmap are essential to safeguard the rights of the accused and to prevent undue incarceration, aligning with constitutional guarantees of speedy trial. For UPSC aspirants, monitoring how the judiciary balances security concerns with individual rights in high‑profile cases offers insight into the functioning of India’s legal and governance frameworks.