Courts Must Be Cautious In Transfer Pleas Alleging Judicial Bias, Reckless Claims Erode Public Faith: Chhattisgarh High Court

The Chhattisgarh High Court has said that transfer of a case– particularly where it is sought by making allegations against a Presiding Officer, is a "serious matter" and the same cannot be allowed merely on a suspicion that a party will not get justice.In this regard, Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha explained,“Mere suspicion by the party that he will not get justice would not justify transfer. There must be a reasonable apprehension to that effect. A judicial order made by a Judge legitimately cannot be made foundation for a transfer of case. Mere presumption of possible apprehension should not and ought not be the basis of transfer of any case from one Court to another. It is only in very special circumstances, when such grounds are taken, the Court must find reasons exist to transfer a case, not otherwise.”The court further underscored that justice delivery system knows "no caste, religion, creed, colour" etc., and it is a system following principle of black and white, i.e., truth and false. It said that the foundation of the system is based on the independence and impartiality of the men having responsibility to impart justice i.e. Judicial Officers and if their confidence, impartiality and reputation is shaken, it is bound to affect the very independence of judiciary.“The allegations of bias of Presiding Officer, if made the basis for transfer of case, before exercising power under Section 447 of BNSS, the Court must be satisfied that the apprehension of bias or prejudice is bona fide and reasonable. The expression of apprehension, must be proved/ substantiated by circumstances and material placed by such applicant before the Court. It cannot be taken as granted that mere allegation would be sufficient to justify transfer.” the Single Judge added.The petitioner had sought transfer of his case pending before the Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Raipur, to any other Competent Court on the ground that the Special Judge had personal bias and upon his instruction, the petitioner was falsely implicated in the case.The petitioner was arrayed as co-accused in a crime where the prime accused had lured a girl belonging to the Scheduled Caste into a physical relationship on the pretext of marriage and forcibly committed physical intercourse with her causing her to become pregnant. Specific allegations against the petitioner was that he, alongwith the other co-accused, forcibly administered some poisonous substance to kill her.While investigation into the specific role of the petitioner was pending, his plea of anticipatory bail and regular bail were rejected by the Special Judge, even as anticipatory bail to the other co-accused were granted. Alleging personal bias of the Special Judge, the petitioner sought transfer of his case to any other Competent Court.At the outset, the Court noted that where a transfer is sought by making allegations regarding integrity or influence in respect of the Presiding Officer, the Court has to be careful before passing any order and must be convinced that the apprehension of bias is bona fide and reasonable. Emphasising on the need of careful and strict examination by the Court in such cases, the Single Judge observed,“In the matters where reckless false allegations are attempted to be made to seek some favourable order, either in a transfer application, or otherwise, the approach of Court must be strict and cautious to find out whether the allegations are bona fide, and, if treated to be true on their face, in the entirety of circumstances, can be believed to be correct, by any person of ordinary prudence in those circumstances. If the allegations are apparently false, strict approach is the call of the day so as to maintain not only discipline in the courts of law but also to protect judicial officers and maintain their self esteem, confidence and above all the majesty of institution of justice.”However, the Court went on to observe that when there is a deliberate attempt to scandalise a Judicial Officer of a District Court, the damage is caused not only to the Judge in contention but also to the fair name of the Judiciary.“There is no manner in which a judicial officer may wear his impartiality on his sleeves. Scandalizing a judicial Officer of District Court is bound to shake confidence of the litigating public in the system and has to be tackled strictly.”, it remarked.Noting that the grounds taken by the petitioner alleging judicial bias were vague and wholly unsubstantiated, the Court concluded,“The allegation of bias by mere fact of an adverse order is not sufficient to justify transfer unless it is also substantiated by relevant material, which is not the case in hand. Moreover, the accused and complainant both are the Advocates. As such, I do not find any good ground interference in the present matter.”The petitioner was accordingly dismissed.Case Details:Case Number: TPCR No. 14 of 2025Case Title: Chandrashekhar Agrawal v. State of ChhattisgarhCitation:...

Courts Must Be Cautious In Transfer Pleas Alleging Judicial Bias, Reckless Claims Erode Public Faith: Chhattisgarh High Court

Saahas Arora

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Courts Must Be Cautious In Transfer Pleas Alleging Judicial Bias, Reckless Claims Erode Public Faith: Chhattisgarh High Court

Saahas Arora

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers