The court held that the applicant's apprehension of bias or lack of objectivity was not supported by any reasonable or objective grounds. The judge clarified that her previous directions were based on a misapprehension regarding the parties involved in contempt proceedings, and once clarified, she issued the appropriate ruling. The court emphasized that mere dissatisfaction with a ruling or a shift in the court's position, absent any evidence or reasonable suspicion of bias, does not warrant judicial recusal. The proper avenue for challenging the ruling is by appeal, not by seeking the judge's disqualification. The court found no basis to conclude that a reasonable person would apprehend bias or lack of objectivity in the circumstances and declined to disqualify herself from hearing the matter.