Case Can't Be Transferred On 'Hypersensitive' Litigant's Imaginary Apprehension Of Bias: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has held that a case cannot be transferred depending upon a “hypersensitive” litigant's imaginary apprehension of bias who jumped to unwarranted conclusion.

Justice Manoj Jain dismissed two pleas seeking transfer of a long pending CBI trial, holding that mere change in the manner of hearing final arguments by the concerned judge does not give rise to any reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Court underscored that transfer of cases is an extraordinary power and must be exercised cautiously and only in exceptional circumstances.

The Court noted that transfer orders can have a “depressing, demoralizing and disconsolate impact” on the concerned judge and thus, an order of transfer cannot be passed as a matter of routine.

The pleas were filed by Balbir Chand Tiwari and Sukhmohinder Singh Sandhu, who are facing trial in a 1994 case investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation.

The matter was being heard at the stage of final arguments before the trial court. Earlier, the predecessor judge had directed that arguments be addressed first on the issue of sanction under Section 197 of CrPC.

The petitioners argued that initially, the present judge fixed up the matter for arguments on the point of sanction but later opined that the final arguments be addressed comprehensively i.e. on the point of sanction as well as on the merits of the case.

It was argued that the shift prompted the petitioners to seek transfer of the case, alleging apprehension of bias and lack of fairness due to the “sudden” change in procedure.

Their request for transfer was rejected by the Principal District & Sessions Judge, Rouse Avenue Courts.

The Court rejected the petitioners' argument that the deviation in the manner of addressing arguments made them apprehensive, observing that the apprehension is unfounded, specious and misplaced.

“Mere fact that, the court, now, wants to hear final arguments in a comprehensive manner would not, by itself, mean anything significant or suggestive of any bias or predetermination of the outcome,” the Court said.

It added that such “inconsequential aspects” about the manner in which the Trial Court desires to hear final arguments, are better left to its wisdom and discretion.

The judge also observed that the answer to the issue of sanction would remain the same - whether it is answered in piecemeal or in a combined manner.

“The case is very old and was transferred from the State of Haryana to Delhi and the learned Presiding Judge is already in the middle of hearing final arguments and no justifiable reason exists to transfer the cases to some other Court,” the Court said.

Justice Jain held that the petitioners were being “hypersensitive” who seem to have misread the “order and mind of the court” and jumped to imaginary and unwarranted conclusion.

“Resultantly, finding no illegality in the impugned order dated 17.03.2026, this Court does not find any reason to transfer the abovesaid case to another Court,” the Court ruled.

Title: BALBIR CHAND TIWARI v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION & ORS and other connected matter

Click here to read order