Disturbing To See Transfer Petitions Alleging Judicial Bias, Must Deal With Iron Hand: Punjab & Haryana HC
The Punjab And Haryana High Court noticed a disturbing trend of seeking transfer of trial alleging that a judge is biased against them.
The court said that if forum hunting is not dealt with strictly, the sanctity of the judicial process will be eroded.
The Court was hearing the Transfer Petition of a woman seeking shifting of trial on account of distance, additionally claiming that the trial judge is prejudiced against her, decipherable from the fact that the judge had issued bailable warrants against the petitioner for her non-appearance as a prosecution witness.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Sumeet Goel warned, “[T]o cast aspersions on or besmirch their judicial work due to a development or Order, unacceptable or unpalatable to a litigant, therefore pleading for transfer of trial etc. by such litigant is plainly subterfuge. If this could be the foundation in transfer of a case, it will well neigh yield anarchy in the adjudicatory process.”
Advocate Gurnoor Singh appeared for the petitioner-wife, Additional Advocate General, Punjab Anup Singh appeared for the State and Advocate Jashanpreet appeared for two of the respondents.
The Court noticed a “disturbing aspect which craves attention”, that of litigants seeking transfer of trial alleging that the presiding officer is biased or that a wrong or illegal Order was passed by them. Justice Goel conceded that Trial Court judges or presiding officers “may commit errors sometimes”, but added that the same can always be rectified by a higher Court. In cases where a higher Court finds an error committed by a lower Court, that fact cannot by itself “lead to an inference that such Presiding Officer or trial Judge is biased or influenced or the prospect of fair trial has been compromised.”
Trial Judges and Presiding Officers are not expected to show unnecessary sensitivity to “callous” allegations by litigants and recuse themselves from the case, the High Court said. “Judicial Officers often function and discharge their duties in (an) environment which is overloaded with various stakeholders, literally and figuratively, breathing down their necks.”
The tendency of Court or forum hunting “needs to be curbed with an iron hand”, it said. If “vexatious and virulent attempts by unscrupulous attempts” are not responded with firmness, “the sanctity of the judicial process will be seriously eroded."
“A litigant who misuses the process of law or takes liberties with the truth should be left in no doubt about the consequences to follow. Others should be discouraged not to venture along the same path in the hope or on a misplaced expectation of judicial leniency or indulgence. Exemplary costs, in such a situation are inevitable and necessary,” the Court sternly warned.
Pleas which are “deficient in any reasonability” have to be construed as trifling with the Courts and the process of justice, the Court said, noting that the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 provides for imposing costs in such cases, but limits the maximum amount of fine to ₹1,000. However, through the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, “such frivolity has not been left immutable. The legislative intent has now explicit provision for such a sum as the High Court may consider proper in the circumstances of a given case, which has indubitably lent, meaningful intent to the provision,” the Court said.
The apprehension of an unfair trial “must be reasonable and not imaginary, based on conjectures and surmises,” the Court said. “A person making a plea for transfer is not required to demonstrate that justice will inevitably fail if trial or proceedings etc. are not transferred. Such an applicant is to only show the circumstances from which it can be inferred that the apprehension is a reasonable one, in the facts and circumstances of a given case.”
The Supreme Court in Umesh Kumar Sharma vs. State of Uttarakhand & Ors. (2021) held that “While assurance of a fair trial needs to be respected, the plea for transfer of case should not be entertained on mere apprehension of a hyper sensitive person.”
As a word of caution, the High Court expressed the view that transfer jurisdiction of the High Court ought to be exercised sparingly.
As per the CrPC and BNSS, a trial can be transferred if it is “expedient for ends of justice” to so direct. The said phrase is “inherently incapable of being exhaustively defined,” the High Court said, adding that it has to be interpreted in a manner so that it serves justice, even handedly, to all concerned parties.
In the present case, the Court dismissed the transfer petition, clarifying that its observations would not have any effect on the merits of the case.
Cause Title: X v. State of Punjab [CRM-M-19068-2024]
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocate Gurnoor Singh
Respondents: Anup Singh, AAG Punjab and Advocates Jashanpreet and Rajni Gupta
Click here to read/download the Judgment
