Apprehension of bias has to be real: Delhi High Court imposes ₹25K costs on litigant who sought transfer of case

The Delhi High Court last week imposed costs of ₹25,000 on a man requesting transfer of his case alleging bias by the Additional Senior Civil Judge (ASCJ) hearing his matter [Ankur Mutreja v Aviation Employees Cooperative House Building Society Ltd]..Justice C Hari Shankar held that though the standard of bias is one of apprehension rather than proof, the apprehension has to be real and not merely chimerical or fanciful, or a method to try one’s luck before another court.“Allegations of bias against a judicial officer are not to be likely made. Even issuance of notice on such an application has serious deleterious repercussions for the judicial officer concerned. Every judicial officer is expected to act without fear or favour, affection or ill will. That is the solemn oath which every judicial officer subscribes to, at the time of entering into his office,” the single-judge observed.The High Court held that if a plea for transfer of case without any material is entertained, it would be impossible for judges to function dispassionately. “If a request for transfer such as this, alleging, without a scintilla of material, bias on the part of the judicial officer, is to be entertained, this Court is constrained to observe that it would be impossible for judicial officers to function dispassionately or discharge their duties without fear or favour," the Court said. .The High Court was dealing with a petition filed by one Ankur Mutreja, challenging the order of District Judge, Karkardoom Courts, that had refused to transfer his case.Mutreja illustrated three instances based on which he was seeking the transfer. First, he said that by an order dated September 15, 2021 the ASCJ dismissed a review application filed by him on the ground of limitation despite the Supreme Court having extended the same in view of the Covid-19 pandemic.Second, he submitted that he had moved an application for rectification of an order by the judge. Instead of rectifying the said order, the application was merely taken on record and therefore till the order is corrected the error will continue to remain a part of the record and would prejudice him in future proceedings.Finally, he said that the respondents in the case had moved an application under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act to bring on record a copy of undertaking given by defendants. Mutreja argued that the application was fixed for argument on March 16 but when he requested permission to address the arguments on the application, the trial court orally expressed its opinion that he would have no locus standi..Justice Hari Shankar, however, agreed with the observation of the district judge that the petition had not been able to make out any convincing case of legitimate apprehension of bias against the ASCJ.The Court said that a request for transfer of a case without justified reasons practically amounts to an abuse of process as it would tantamount to forum shopping and all the instances cited by the petitioner do not, by the farthest of imagination, make out any such case.“The mere fact that the petitioner may be unhappy by the manner in which the case is progressing before the trial court, is no ground for the petitioner to uproot the matter from the court in which it is pending and plant it elsewhere. If such an attitude is to be countenanced, no judicial officer would be able to function dispassionately,” the Court said. The High Court noted that the present case is an extreme example of abuse of process and seeks to interfere with pending proceedings and to throw a cloud on the integrity of a judicial officer without any material whatsoever.Therefore, Justice Hari Shankar said that he is constrained to dismiss the petition costs.“I am constrained, therefore, despite the fact that the petitioner appears in person, to dismiss this petition with costs of ₹ 25,000/ - to be deposited by the petitioner with the Registry of this Court by way of a crossed cheque favouring the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee. Let the cheque be presented within a period of one week from the date of receipt, by the petitioner, of a certified copy of this order, failing which this Court would treat it as contempt,” the Court ordered. .While Mutreja appeared in-person before the Court, no one appeared for the respondent. .[Read Order]