Judicial Officer Cannot Be Browbeaten For Convenience Of A Party: Kerala High Court Dismisses Transfer Petition Alleging Bias, Imposes ₹15K Cost

In the facts of the case, the petitioner husband approached the High Court seeking the transfer of matrimonial dispute cases, alleging the Presiding Officer's bias.

Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas found that the petitioner had filed two transfer petitions earlier, alleging identical allegations of bias against different Presiding Officers. Court said,

“The similarity of allegations raised against two different Presiding Officers who dealt with petitioner's cases is a clear indication of petitioner's calumny. The various allegations raised by the petitioner against the Presiding Officer are without any merit. Such vituperative denigration of a judicial officer by a litigant has to be dealt with sternly and cannot be tolerated under any circumstances whatsoever.”

The petitioner husband alleges that the Presiding Officer is biased and that whenever he files documents, those are treated and forged and ex parte orders are passed against him even if he is absent on a single posting. He further alleges that petitions filed by respondent wife are accepted without verification and without even serving copies to him.

The petitioner submitted that his lawyer filed a compliant before the Registrar General of the High Court alleging bias of the Presiding Officer of the Family Court.

The Court noted that the petitioner has filed two transfer petitions earlier alleging bias against the Presiding Officer and this is his third transfer petition alleging bias against the new Presiding Officer of the same court. The Court noted that the petitioner has raised identical allegations of bias in his earlier transfer petitions also.

The Court found that the petitioner raised general allegations of bias without making out a specific case of bias. The Court stated that allegations of bias against a judicial officer has to be dealt with seriously, and that vague allegations cannot be permitted without any basis.

Court said, “A judicial officer cannot be browbeaten to suit the convenience of a party to a lis. Unless the allegations of bias against a judicial officer are sturdy and impregnable, courts cannot rely on mere apprehensions to transfer cases from one court to another. In fact, merit less allegations of bias against a judicial officer ought to be sternly and ruthlessly dealt with.”

The Court went on to state that adverse orders against a party by itself cannot be a reason to doubt the integrity of a judicial officer.

The Court referred to Abraham Thomas Puthooran v. Manju Abraham and Another (2022) to state that a petition seeking transfer cannot be made based on conjectures and mystic maybes and the onus is on the person who alleges bias to prove it.

The Court observed that allegations of bias made without any cogent reason is disastrous to the judicial system as a whole, since it casts a doubt upon a judicial officer's integrity.

“There may be some substance in it or it may be made for ulterior purposes or in a pending case to avoid the Bench if a party apprehends that judgment may be delivered against him. Suspicion or bias disables an official from acting as an adjudicator. Further, if such an allegation is made without any substance, it would be disastrous to the system as a whole, for the reason, that it casts doubt upon a Judge who has no personal interest in the outcome of the controversy”, added the Court.

In the present case, the Court observed that the petitioner has only raised bald allegations of bias against the judicial officer without any materials to substantiate it.

Further, the Court stated that the petitioner is making unfounded and baseless allegations against every Judicial Officer who handles his cases. It said, “Such a conduct is only to be deprecated”.

As such, the Court dismissed the transfer petition and imposed a cost of rupees fifteen thousand upon the petitioner.

Counsel for Petitioners: Advocates Surumi Shakeel, Shaijan Joseph

Counsel for Respondents: Advocates Asaf Ali T, Laliza T Y, Public Prosecutor C N Prabhakaran

Case Number: TR.P(CRL.) NO. 43 OF 2024

Case Title: Noushad Flourish v Akhila

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 683

Click here to Read/Download The Order