Unless Allegations Of Bias Against Judicial Officer Are Sturdy & Impregnable, Courts Can’t Rely On Mere Apprehensions To Transfer Cases: Kerala HC
|The Kerala High Court has observed that unless the allegations of bias against a judicial officer are sturdy and impregnable, courts cannot rely on mere apprehensions to transfer cases from one court to another.
The Court dismissed a third transfer petition filed by the petitioner, who sought the transfer of multiple cases from the Family Court in Thalassery to the Family Court in Vadakara, alleging judicial bias. The Bench directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 15k in costs and observed that the transfer petition was a “ploy to delay the proceedings” and to “browbeat the Presiding Officer from issuing orders” in the matrimonial case.
A Single Bench of Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas observed, “An allegation of bias against a Judicial Officer is a matter of serious concern. Reckoning the nature of duties bestowed upon a judicial officer and allegations of bias cannot be permitted to be raised without any basis and on mere surmises and assumptions. A judicial officer cannot be browbeaten to suit the convenience of a party to a lis. Unless the allegations of bias against a judicial officer are sturdy and impregnable, courts cannot rely on mere apprehensions to transfer cases from one court to another. In fact, merit less allegations of bias against a judicial officer ought to be sternly and ruthlessly dealt with.”
Advocate Surumi Shakeel appeared for the petitioner, while Advocate Asaf Ali T. represented the respondents.
The petitioner sought the transfer of the cases pending in the court alleging bias of the Presiding Officer. According to the petitioner, all the petitions filed by the respondents were being accepted without even serving a copy on him, while documents produced by the petitioner were treated as forged.
The Petitioner alleged that his counsel filed a complaint before the Registrar General of the High Court pointing out the Presiding Officer's bias. Based on the above circumstances, the petitioner wanted the cases and the petitions pending to be transferred to another Family Court.
The High Court noted that the allegations raised by the petitioner in all the three transfer petitions were “practically identical.”
“Apart from the above, the pleadings in the present transfer petition indicate that except for a few vague allegations of bias, no specific case is made out for a transfer of the case. A mere allegation of bias by itself can weaken the very edifice of the judicial system and even erode the confidence of the Officer,” the Bench remarked.
“A judicial officer is expected to dispense justice to the best of his ability. While dealing with a case, a judicial officer will have to issue several orders. The orders are issued as the circumstances warrant. In that process, orders adverse to a party will have to be issued. Adverse orders by themselves cannot be reasons to doubt the integrity of the judicial officer. The aggrieved certainly have remedies before the higher forum,” the Court stated.
The Bench referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Kumaon Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd. v. Girja Shankar Pant(2001) wherein it was held that “mere general statements will not be sufficient for the purposes of indication of ill-will. There must be cogent evidence available on record to come to the conclusion as to the existence of any element of bias which has resulted in the miscarriage of justice.”
Consequently, the Court observed, “The similarity of allegations raised against two different Presiding Officers who dealt with petitioner’s cases is a clear indication of petitioner’s calumny. The various allegations raised by the petitioner against the Presiding Officer are without any merit. Such vituperative denigration of a judicial officer by a litigant has to be dealt with sternly and cannot be tolerated under any circumstances whatsoever..”
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the transfer petition.
Cause Title: N v. A & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024:KER:80260)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates Surumi Shakeel and Shaijan Joseph
Respondents: Advocates Asaf Ali T. and Laliza. T.Y.; Public Prosecutor C.N. Prabhakaran