Conduct of judge should always be above board: Delhi High Court transfers case from judge who met party in chamber

Observing that judges should not act in any manner to give rise to even the slightest doubt in the minds of litigants and lawyers, the Delhi High Court transferred a case from the court of a family judge who shared his personal contact number with the parties and met one of them in his chambers..Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma said that judges have to remind themselves time and again that their conduct is closely observed and noted by litigants."Unfortunately, on account of the conduct of the judge for sharing his personal mobile number with both the parties and admittedly having met one of the parties in the chamber has unnecessarily given a cause of reasonable apprehension of bias,” the Court said in its order..Justice Sharma was dealing with a plea filed by a mother challenging the order of a family court in Saket which restrained her from taking her minor child out of Delhi. A subsequent order to the same effect was also challenged.The petition said that while the proceedings were pending before the High Court, the family judge decided the guardianship petition and gave visitation rights to the father. He was allowed to see the child not only on weekdays, but also on Saturday and for several days on long weekends and holidays.It was also stated that during the proceedings, the family court shared his personal mobile number with the parties and that the father met the judge in his chambers. This, it was stated, created an apprehension in the mind of the petitioner mother..The High Court held that it was not advisable for the judge to have shared his contact number with parties, and that it is a settled proposition that justice must not only be done, but must also appear to have been done.“The conduct of the judge while conducting the judicial proceedings should be above board,” the order stated.Justice Sharma said that though mere adverse orders are not sufficient to invoke the power of transfer, allegations of bias need to be evaluated on the premise of a reasonable apprehension of bias.“It is a settled proposition that ‘mere apprehension of bias’ and not ‘actual bias’ may be sufficient to exercise the power of transfer.”.The Court, therefore, set aside the orders of the family court and restored the guardianship petition. The Principal Judge of the family court was directed to decide the same. Father has been given visitation rights for three hours on Wednesday and Friday and eight hours on weekends and four hours on the child’s birthday.“The principal judge, Family Court is requested to decide the said guardianship petition as expeditiously as possible preferably within four weeks. Learned Principal Judge, Family Court may also take assistance of the Child Counselor and interact with the child before deciding the visitation rights.”.Advocates Arundhati Katju, Bhabna Das and Shristi Bor Thakur appeared for the petitioner's mother.The respondent was represented by Senior Advocate Geeta Luthra along with Advocates Asmita Narula and Apoorva Maheshwari..[Read Order]