Judges shouldn't succumb to pressure of callous allegations made by litigants: Punjab & Haryana High Court
The Punjab & Haryana High Court recently said that judicial officers should not succumb to pressure by litigants who make callous allegations of bias against them [Dinesh Chand Bansal v. State of Haryana and another]
Justice Sumeet Goel made the observation while dealing with a case seeking the transfer of a defamation complaint pending before a judicial magistrate in Haryana's Panchkula to a different judge, due to alleged bias.
The Court said that the option to seek transfer was frequently being weaponised to undermine judicial independence as litigants often misinterpret an adverse or unfavourable order as an indication of inherent bias. This leads to a proliferation of unfounded transfer applications that threaten the very stability of the legal process, it added.
The Court further observed that judges often commit errors owing to the "tremendous strain" they face by various stakeholders.
“It must be underscored that a Presiding Officer/trial Judge has to perform his duty and not to succumb to the pressure put by the litigant(s) by making callous allegations. He is not expected to show unnecessary sensitivity to such allegations and recuse himself from the case. Judicial Officers often function and discharge their duties in environment which is overloaded with various stakeholders, literally and figuratively, breathing down their necks. They may, at times, err, owing to tremendous strain which can be remedied in multiple ways,” the Court said.
Judicial Officers often function and discharge their duties in environment which is overloaded with various stakeholders, literally and figuratively, breathing down their necks.
Punjab and Haryana High Court
The petitioner before the Court had sought transfer of a defamation case pending before a magistrate in Panchkula. The judicial magistrate hearing the complaint case was accused of harassing the accused (petitioner before High Court), at the behest of the complainant.
However, the High Court opined that the petitioner’s allegations were general in nature and did not inspire confidence to warrant transfer of proceedings.
"The mere fact that the complaint has been pending since 2019 is also not sufficient, by itself, to justify transfer particularly when the delay cannot be attributed solely to the complainant or the trial Court from the totality of the facts of the case in hand, no perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error has been pointed out warranting interference by this Court,” it held.
In the ruling, the Court also took note of “increasingly pervasive and deleterious trend” of litigants casting unfounded and scurrilous aspersions on the counsel representing the rival side.
“Any unsubstantiated attack on the professional conduct of a counsel, particularly involving the Court/judicial officer(s), is, in essence, an attack on the majesty of law itself,” the Court remarked.
Taking note of aspersions cast on the judge and the counsel in the present case, the Court dismissed the transfer plea with costs of ₹50,000.
“Judicial error is not synonymous with judicial partiality and hence mere passing of an unfavourable order, or even an order subsequently set aside by a superior Court, does not ipso facto establish a foundation for bias or prejudice."
Senior Advocate Dr Anmol Rattan Sidhu with Advocate Pratham Sethi represented the petitioner.
Senior Deputy Advocate General Mahima Yashpal Sinha appeared for the State.
Advocate Rohit Kaushik represented the complainant.