Judge Can't Be Presumed To Be Biased Merely Because Litigant's Relative Is Police Constable Or Court Staff: Supreme Court

In a significant ruling on transfer petitions grounded on allegations of bias, the Supreme Court on January 6 set aside an order of the Telangana High Court transferring a criminal case from Sangareddy to Hyderabad, holding that such allegations cannot be sustained merely on the basis of the official positions held by relatives of a litigant.A bench comprising Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice K Vinod Chandran allowed an appeal filed by the wife, against an ex parte order by which proceedings in a criminal case initiated on her complaint were shifted from the Court of the Additional Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sangareddy, to the Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad, at the instance of her husband.The Court noted that the transfer was ordered without hearing the wife, who was impleaded as a respondent in the transfer petition but had not appeared. It took exception to the High Court's approach, particularly given the personal circumstances highlighted by the appellant, including the difficulty faced by a woman with two children in prosecuting proceedings far from her hometown.The transfer had been sought on the ground of alleged bias, premised on the claim that the wife's relatives were influencing the police and court staff at Sangareddy. It was contended that one relative was a Head Constable in the local police station and another was employed in the District Court establishment.Allegations of bias found inconsequentialRejecting this reasoning, the Supreme Court held that such facts, by themselves, do not justify a presumption of bias against the presiding judge.“Primarily, it cannot be said that merely because the relative of the wife is a Head Constable and another is working in the District Court, there would be a bias against the husband, especially when the adjudication is carried out by the Judge,” the Court observed.It further noted that one of the relatives relied upon for alleging bias had already been transferred out of the relevant court establishment. The Court concluded that the grounds raised for transfer were inconsequential and did not warrant shifting the proceedings.“We cannot lightly find a bias on the Judge merely because the relative of a party is a Head Constable working in a Police Station coming within the jurisdiction of the Court and/or another relative is working in the District Court itself,” the Court said.Setting aside the High Court's order, the Supreme Court directed that the criminal case be transferred back to the Court of the Additional Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sangareddy. It further ordered that if the case had been closed by the transferee court on any ground, including default of appearance, it must be restored and retransferred without fail.Addressing the husband's apprehension regarding safety, the Court observed that he could seek exemption from personal appearance, appear through counsel or video conferencing, and, if required, apply for adequate police protection, which the Magistrate should consider favourably.The Court clarified that its observations were confined to the transfer issue and would not influence the final adjudication of the case on evidence. HeadnoteCriminal Procedure – Transfer of Cases – Allegation of Bias – Matrimonial Disputes – Conduct of Parties – Deceitful Litigation – Held that the High Court's order of transfer, based on allegations that the wife's relatives (a Head Constable and a District Court staff member) could exert influence, cannot be sustained - Bias on the part of a Judge cannot be lightly inferred merely because a party's relative is a police officer within the jurisdiction or a staff member in the same District Court - Litigation – Noted that the husband surreptitiously obtained a divorce decree while a compromise was being reached in criminal proceedings, without informing the wife - Such reprehensible conduct by the husband should have restrained the High Court from granting a transfer that increased the travails of a woman with two children – Held that to address the husband's alleged threat to life, he is permitted to seek appearance through counsel or video conferencing - If physical presence is required, the Magistrate may provide necessary protection – Appeal allowed. [Para 5 - 12]Case : Prasanna Kasini v The State of TelanganaCitation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 16Click here to read the judgment

Judge Can't Be Presumed To Be Biased Merely Because Litigant's Relative Is Police Constable Or Court Staff: Supreme Court

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Judge Can't Be Presumed To Be Biased Merely Because Litigant's Relative Is Police Constable Or Court Staff: Supreme Court

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers