Judges May Commit Errors Sometimes, Doesn't Mean They Are Biased Or Fair Trial Is Compromised: Punjab & Haryana High Court

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has said that if an order of a trial judge is found erroneous by a Superior Court, that does not by itself lead to an inference that the trial judge is biased or influenced. 

It further said that judicial officers may make errors sometimes–which can be corrected–due to "tremendous strain"; however to seek transfer of trial in such a situation, amounts to subterfuge. 

A single judge bench of Justice Sumeet Goel said, "It must be borne in mind that a Presiding Officer/trial Judge who discharges his duty may commit errors sometimes. The same can well be rectified by a higher/superior Court, but the factum of an order passed by the Presiding Officer/trial Judge having been found erroneous by a high/superior Court can, by no stretch of imagination, ipso facto lead to an inference that such Presiding Officer/trial Judge is biased or influenced or the prospect of fair trial has been compromised."

The Court also added that a Presiding Officer or a trial Judge has to perform his duty and not to succumb to the pressure put by the litigant(s) by making callous allegations and he is not expected to show unnecessary sensitivity to such allegations and recuse himself from the case.

"Judicial Officers often function and discharge their duties in environment which is overloaded with various stakeholders, literally and figuratively, breathing down their necks. They may, at times, err, owing to tremendous strain, which can be remedied in multiple ways. However, to cast aspersions on or besmirch their judicial work due to a development/order, unacceptable or unpalatable to a litigant, therefore pleading for transfer of trial etc. by such litigant is plainly subterfuge," the Court added.

The Court said that if transfer of trial is allowed of such grounds then the litigants will lead to "neigh yield anarchy in the adjudicatory process" and the litigants will indulge in forum hunting "which tendency needs to be curbed with an iron hand."

These observations were made while hearing the plea of a woman seeking transfer of the trial in a cruelty and dowry demand case lodged by her, from Punjab's Mania District To Bathinda. She submitted that her parents are old and will not be able to accompany her for Court proceedings in Mansa, where trial is pending.

She also alleged that the trial judge is prejudiced against her, as he had issued bailable warrants against her for her non-appearance as a prosecution witness.

When can high court transfer criminal case

After hearing the submissions, the High Court considered the question, "what are the parameters for consideration for transfer of a criminal case under Section 407 of Cr.P.C./Section 447 of BNSS, 2023."

The High Court said that, the parameters for consideration for exercise of power under Section 447 BNSS or Section 407 CrPC are, "fair and impartial enquiry or trial; a question of law of unusual difficulty arising; the general convenience of parties to the lis; the general convenience of the witnesses".

The high court added that in a case where it is reflected that the Court proceedings are sought to be disturbed by "rude or unruly crowds", commotions is caused by "jeering or cheering" outside the Court premises, the same may cause disquiet and concern to a person related to the trial/appeal and it may call for transfer of case.

"if it emerges that safety of the complainant/victim, witnesses or even the accused is likely to be put to peril; such plea(s) for transfer ought to be considered, keeping in view, the salutary objective of a fair trial. If this vice is peculiar to a particular place, the High Court ought to transfer the trial etc. to a place where such vice ceases to have effect," the Court said.

What can be grounds for transfer, no universal guidelines though

The High Court also illustrated that if a party to the trial, for any particular reason, is virtually deprived of assistance of a counsel, this can well be taken as a valid cause for lack of fair trial.

However, the applicant (seeking transfer of trial etc.) would be required to show tangible circumstance so as to substantiate such a plea. For instance; if in a certain Court, the Bar, for any reason, refuses to represent a person, it may well call for intervention by transferring the trial proceedings, the judge added.

Justice Goel highlighted that the non-applicant (in a transfer petition) being a lawyer himself or being in close relationship with a lawyer practicing in the Court where the trial is pending adjudication cannot be a ground, sufficient by itself, for shifting of trial.

"For such a transfer petition to succeed, the applicant (seeking transfer) is required to show discernible prejudice being caused or likely to be caused to such applicant (seeking transfer)," it added. 

The high court also said that the general convenience of parties to trial or witnesses is a factor which may be considered for transfer of trial etc. However, it is not the convenience of one party alone but it is the comparative convenience of all concerned i.e. the accused, victim/complainant, witnesses and the State (Prosecution/Police) which is to be taken into account, it added. The court however said that "no universal guidelines" can be possibly enumerated for exercise of high court's power under Section 407CrPC or Section 447 BNSS as every case has its own unique factual conspectus.

Unscrupulous attempt by petitioner in casting aspersion against trial judge 

In the present case, the High Court said that the wife was not mandatorily required to attend each and every date of hearing in the trial court since she is the complainant.

"Her interest, in the trial, can well be taken care of by a Counsel. It is neither pleaded nor is decipherable from the factual matrix of the case that she is facing any difficulty in engaging a Counsel. Nevertheless, if the need so arises, she may seek the assistance of a Legal Aid Counsel by making requisite plea before concerned quarters," the high court said. 

The high court further found no infirmity in the trial court's order issuing bailable warrants against the petitioner after noting that it was issued after she and two other witnesses were not coming forward to record their testimonies. 

While rejecting the petitioner's argument that the fair trial is compromised because the trial judge has passed an allegedly biased order, the high court said, "The unscrupulous attempt, by the petitioner, in casting aspersions on the learned trial Court by reliance upon the order dated 02.08.2024 deserves to be deprecated and responded with abhorrence."

It however refrained from imposing exemplary costs upon the petitioner after noting her age, the fact that she had no antecedents regarding raising such "scandalous issues" and that the present matter arose out of matrimonial dispute. 

It thereafter dismissed the woman's plea, adding that its observations will not affect the merits of the case before the trial court. 

Case Title: X v. State of Punjab and others

Counsel for Petitioner: Advocate Gurnoor Singh

Counsel for State: AAG  Anup Singh

Counsel for Respondents 2-4: Advocate Jashanpreet for Advocate Rajni Gupta

Click Here To Read/Download Order