S 25 CPC – Transfer Petitions Casting Aspersions On Courts

Recently, in Anupam Ghosh vs. Faiz Mohammed 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 751 , the Supreme Court dismissed a Transfer Petition in which one off the grounds raised by the petitioners was that they are not getting a fair trial and the respondents being local bigwigs are able to influence the local Court. While dismissing the petition, the court observed: “We deprecate such a stand and the ground on which the proceedings are sought to be transferred. Merely because some Orders are passed on judicial side (in the present case in the execution proceedings) which may be against the petitioners, it cannot be said that the Court, which passed the order was influenced. If the petitioners are aggrieved by any judicial order, the proper remedy would be to challenge the same before higher forum. But merely because some Orders adverse to them are passed by the Court, it cannot be said that the Orders on judicial side are passed under influence. Nowadays, there is a tendency to make such allegations against the judicial Officers whenever the orders are passed against a litigant and the orders are not liked by the concerned litigant. We deprecate such a practice. If such a practice is continued, it will ultimately demoralize the judicial officer. In fact, such an allegation can be said to be obstructing the administration of justice.”

Referring to this judgment, recently, the Allahabad High Court in an order observed: “Upon hearing learned Counsel for the applicant at length in support of this application, this Court is convinced that not only a case for transfer not made out but this transfer application is again a manifestation of a pernicious trend in society where litigants tend to suspect Judges and show disrespect to them by coming up with baseless allegations about their impartiality. The mere fact that the Court is proceeding with an old suit, is hardly a basis to infer bias against the Judge. The allegations of bias against a Judge is a very serious matter and can be made, if at all, in the rarest of rare cases where there is clinching proof. It cannot be made in a cavalier fashion, as done in this case. The vague allegations that the plaintiff has developed some kind of a personal relationship with the Presiding Officer, bereft of any details, shows the desperate mind of a litigant to do forum hunting and browbeat the Judge in a fashion hitherto unknown, or at least, not common place. The judicial system provides remedies against most orders and if a litigant feels aggrieved by an order, he has a right to assail it by invoking appellate/revisional procedures. But the casting of aspersions by a litigant on the integrity of a Presiding Officer, merely because he apprehends that the Presiding Officer is biased, inferring it through the course of proceedings or basing it on wild conjecture, borders on criminal contempt. If this tendency to move transfer applications on absolutely frivolous and specious ground continues, the free and smooth functioning of Courts would be affected adversely. Action ought be taken to curtail the mischief.”

Leave a Comment