The Delhi High Court has clarified that a litigant cannot seek the transfer of a case simply because a judge has passed an unfavorable order. Justice Saurabh Banerjee, presiding over the matter, emphasized that judicial orders passed in the line of duty do not constitute bias and that dissatisfied parties should instead pursue appropriate legal remedies.
The ruling came during the hearing of a petition filed by a woman seeking to transfer her matrimonial case from one Mahila Court to another. The petitioner had previously approached the Principal and District Judge with the same request, which was rejected through what the High Court described as a “well-reasoned order.”
The petitioner’s apprehension of bias stemmed from a separate criminal proceeding under the Indian Penal Code involving allegations of cruelty. In that case, the presiding judge had discharged the woman’s husband and mother-in-law. This outcome led the petitioner to believe the court was biased against her, prompting her to seek a transfer of her ongoing matrimonial litigation.
The petitioner assailed the order of the Principal District Judge, arguing that the discharge of her relatives in the criminal case provided sufficient grounds to assume bias. She contended that the case should be moved to a different judge to ensure a fair trial.
Conversely, the court noted that the Principal Judge had already determined that the mere discharge of the accused in a criminal case cannot form a basis for assuming judicial bias. The onus to substantiate such serious allegations of partiality remained strictly with the petitioner.
Justice Saurabh Banerjee observed that the Principal Judge’s refusal to transfer the case was based on sound legal reasoning. The High Court underscored that when a court passes an order in the discharge of its judicial duties, the nature of that order—whether favorable or unfavorable—cannot be used to infer bias.
The Court stated:
“Even otherwise, since the said order(s) were passed by a Court of law in discharge of the duties, merely because it was not a favourable order in favour of the petitioner does/ cannot involve an element of bias, all the more whence it is always open for the petitioner to take recourse to the appropriate remedies as available to her in accordance with law.”
The bench further noted that the petitioner was attempting to “re-agitate” the same issues that had already been addressed and negated by the lower court’s speaking order.
Dismissing the petition, the High Court held that an unfavorable order is never a valid ground for a case transfer. It reiterated that the legal system provides specific avenues, such as appeals or revisions, to challenge judicial decisions. Seeking a transfer based on an adverse ruling, the court suggested, is an improper use of legal provisions.
