Calling Judge Biased Because Order Didn't Reflect Certain Arguments Of Party Unjustified: MP High Court Rejects Transfer Plea

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has dismissed an application seeking transfer of a petition to another court over apprehensions of judicial bias, observing that merely because a judicial order does not reflect or discuss certain arguments advanced by the party, it cannot be inferred that the presiding judge was biased or acted unfairly. The bench of Justice Himanshu Joshi observed;"The Court is not obligated to record each and every submission advanced by counsel, particularly those that bear no relevance to the issues in controversy. Judicial orders are required to reflect consideration of material facts, applicable law, and the substantive arguments that have a direct bearing on the adjudication of the dispute. Irrelevant, repetitive, or extraneous submissions do not merit detailed recording, as doing so would unnecessarily burden the judgment without aiding in the resolution of the matter".The applicant had sought transfer of the matter on the ground that certain submissions advanced on his behalf were not reflected in the order of April 16, 2026. According to the applicant, this gave rise to a 'bona fide apprehension' regarding lack of impartiality on part of the Judge.The application further alleged that listing of the present plea immediately after the earlier order also raised suspicion regarding the Court's credibility. The application also requested that no matter concerning him be listed before the same bench. The court noted that the justice delivery system functions on the foundational principles of integrity, impartiality and independence of the judiciary. The court observed that mere subjective apprehension, however strongly felt, cannot constitute a valid ground for the transfer of judicial proceedings unless supported by objective material demonstrating a real likelihood of bias or denial of a fair hearing. Additionally, the court noted; "The allegations appear to be influenced more by extraneous perceptions, seemingly shaped by a milieu where sensational assertions against judicial forums are sometimes used as a means of seeking attention, rather than by any demonstrable factual foundation. This Court is of the considered view that such tendencies, if left unchecked, have the potential to erode public confidence in the administration of justice and therefore deserve to be firmly discouraged". The court further observed that merely because the outcome has not aligned with his expectations, casting unwarranted aspersions upon the impartiality of the Court is neither justified nor conducive to the integrity of a healthy judicial system."Such allegations, devoid of substantive merit, risk eroding public confidence in the institution, which rests fundamentally upon trust, fairness, and the rule of law," it said. Thus, the court dismissed the application on the contention that listing of the writ petition after the earlier order created doubt regarding judicial credibility. The court observed that the listing of matters is governed by established roster and administrative procedures that operate independently of judicial decision-making. The court termed the allegations levelled in the application as wholly unfounded and unwarranted. The court cautioned against making reckless allegations against judicial institutions based on conjecture or subjective impressions. It observed that the applicant's allegations appeared to be influenced by 'extraneous perceptions' and 'sensational assertions' against judicial forums rather than any demonstrable factual foundation. The bench observed that such tendencies, if left unchecked, have the potential to erode public confidence in the administration of justice and therefore deserve to be firmly discouraged. The court also noted that if any inadvertent error or omission is perceived in a judicial order, established legal remedies are available for seeking clarification or correction. The court, thus, dismissed the transfer application for lack of merit. Case Title: Thaneshwar Gole v State of Madhya Pradesh, WP-5303-2020Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (MP) 166For Petitioner-in-Person: Thaneshwar GoleFor State: Government Advocate Priyankaa MishraClick here to read/download the Order

Calling Judge Biased Because Order Didn't Reflect Certain Arguments Of Party Unjustified: MP High Court Rejects Transfer Plea

Jayanti Pahwa

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Jayanti Pahwa

Calling Judge Biased Because Order Didn't Reflect Certain Arguments Of Party Unjustified: MP High Court Rejects Transfer Plea

Jayanti Pahwa

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Jayanti Pahwa

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers