Lawyers and Judges Playing Cricket Together Doesn’t Imply Bias: Supreme Court

Today in the Supreme Court, Hon’ble Mr. Justice V Ramasubramanian of the Supreme Court of India passed his judgement in a transfer petition that was filed before him.

Supreme Court Found no merit in allegations of bias raised by the respondent and allowed the transfer petition

Brief Facts of the case Neetu Yadav Versus Sachin Yadav are as follows:

The Petitioner filed a transfer petition, and she requested the Court to transfer the divorce petition filed by her husband from Family Court, Dwarka to Family Court, Indore.

The wedding between the parties was solemnised on 21.02.2008, and they have two children together as well. The age of the boy is around eight years, and the age of the girl is around 11 years.

Arguments Raised by the Parties:-

The Argument of the petitioner:-

The petitioner stated before the Court that she was dependent on her old parents, and she and her children are residing with them. She submitted that If the case is tried at the Family Court Dwarka, it will be challenging for her to travel over 800 km to attend the hearings and on this ground, the case should be transferred to the Family Court, Indore.

Arguments of the Respondents:-

The main contention raised by the respondent was that the entire family of the petitioner was  “influentially associated with the judicial structure of Madhya Pradesh”. 

It was submitted that the mother of the petitioner retired from a Senior Administrative position in the district judiciary. It was also stated that she had excellent terms and relations with all the judicial officers of the Courts and was also associated with “Unionised Cadre of District Court and their Cooperative Societies”. The respondent also pointed out that senior officials of the Court used to visit the family for celebrations and functions, which shows a clear bias.

The respondent also alleged that due to her mother’s influence, the first notice in the divorce petition was returned as unserved.

It was also mentioned that the brother of the petitioner is a renowned advocate in the M.P. High Court and wields a lot of influence. It was also stated that the younger brother of the petitioner works in the I.T. department of the M.P. High Court.

The respondent submitted that as the whole family of the petitioner works in the Judicial arena of M.P., it will be next to impossible for the respondent to get a fair trial there.

The reasoning of the Court

The Court observed the fact that the respondent had filed the case in Dwarka Court because he was recently posted to Delhi while earlier he used to stay in Indore.

Further the Hon’ble Judge observed that the contention of the respondent was based solely on the fact that the family of the petitioner works in the Judicial setup of M.P.

While considering the evidence that the respondent had submitted, photos of a cricket match between various members of the Bar of M.P. and the bench of the Court and copies of the Facebook page of the brother where members of the Court had liked or commented some posts, the Hon’ble judge opined that the allegation of bias could not be proved just because of a cricket match or socialising on Facebook.

The decision of the Court

The Court held that the allegations of bias were not proved satisfactorily and the case has been directed to be transferred from Family Court, South West, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi to Family Court, Indore, Madhya Pradesh.

Case Details

Title: Neetu Yadav vs Sachin Yadav    

Case No. Transfer Petition (Civil) No.455 OF 2020

Date of Order: 30.09.2020

Quorum: Hon’ble Justice V Ramasubramanian

Law Trend
Legal News Website Providing Latest Judgments of Supreme Court and High Court

Related Articles

Latest Articles