Delhi High Court Rejects Bias Allegations, Dismisses Case Transfer Petition
Court emphasizes the extraordinary nature of transfer petitions, dismisses allegations of judicial bias as unfounded and speculative.
In a significant decision, the Delhi High Court has dismissed a petition seeking the transfer of criminal cases citing alleged judicial bias. The petition, filed by Gaurav Malhotra against Umesh Chand Jain, was brought under Section 447(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and sought to move three cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, from the Saket Court Complex to another jurisdiction.
Presiding over the case, Justice Sanjeev Narula emphasized that the power to transfer cases is an extraordinary measure and should not be invoked lightly or on mere perceptions of bias. The Court noted that the petitioner's dissatisfaction stemmed primarily from scheduling changes and judicial decisions, rather than any substantiated evidence of partiality or mala fides on the part of the presiding officer.
The petitioner's counsel contended that a series of events, including the rescheduling of court dates and the imposition of costs for adjournments, suggested a bias against Malhotra. However, the High Court found these claims to be speculative, lacking substantial proof, and insufficient to warrant a case transfer. The Court highlighted that scheduling adjustments are part of case management and do not inherently imply judicial bias unless driven by improper motives.
Citing previous judgments, including Directorate of Enforcement v. Ajay S. Mittal, the Court underscored the importance of maintaining judicial integrity and the potential harm that unsubstantiated allegations can cause to the judiciary's credibility. It warned against the demoralizing effect on judges and the justice system if litigants are allowed to manipulate proceedings through unfounded claims of bias.
The Court further noted that the petitioner's failure to formally address the alleged scheduling issue before the trial court undermined the credibility of his bias claims. Asserting the need for a high threshold to justify transferring cases, the Court concluded that the petition was an attempt to delay proceedings rather than address genuine concerns of partiality.
In dismissing the petition, the Court also imposed costs of Rs. 10,000 on the petitioner, to be paid to the respondent within three weeks, reinforcing the stance that frivolous or baseless legal actions would not be tolerated.
Bottom Line:
Transfer of case - Allegation of judicial bias - Mere change in scheduling of dates by the trial court, without mala fides, cannot constitute reasonable apprehension of bias - Power to transfer a case is an extraordinary measure and should not be invoked casually.
Statutory provision(s): Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 447(2), Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 138
