The Supreme Court on Thursday declined to entertain a petition filed by former Janata Dal (Secular) MP Prajwal Revanna seeking transfer of two criminal cases from the special MP/MLA court in Bengaluru to another court in the city. Revanna had alleged that the trial judge was biased against him.
A Bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi made it clear that mere observations made by a trial judge cannot form the basis of a bias allegation.
Dismissing the plea at the threshold, the Chief Justice told Revanna’s counsel that the court had “no reason to doubt” the impartiality of the presiding officer.
“The observations of the presiding officer of the court cannot be the ground of bias. We have no reason to doubt that the officer would not be swayed by the fact that the petitioner was found guilty in the earlier case and will confine his conclusions on the basis of evidence led in the pending trial,” the Bench said.
Senior advocates Siddharth Luthra and Siddarth Dave, appearing for Revanna, argued that the judge had also made adverse remarks against the lawyers, which needed expunction.
Justice Bagchi was firm in response, remarking that lawyers cannot attempt to intimidate or undermine a judicial officer.
“You cannot hold the judicial officers to ransom. This lawyer appears in collateral cases and withdraws the vakalatnama time and again,” he said, adding that the trial judge’s remarks were inspired by an earlier order of the high court itself.
CJI Calls Allegations of Bias “Unethical”
Chief Justice Surya Kant advised the counsel to tender an apology before the Karnataka High Court instead of levelling unfounded allegations.
“This is absolutely the most unethical thing done. Let him furnish an apology before the high court and it will consider it. We don’t want to send a message that I went to the Supreme Court and got this done. We have to take care of the morale of our district judiciary as well,” he said.
He added that courtroom exchanges often involve hypotheticals and should not be misconstrued as personal prejudice.
“There are hypothetical situations in court. We make observations. As soon as the judge makes an observation there are allegations made against him. I will not take browbeating of judges lightly,” the CJI observed.
The Bench also acknowledged that judges work under immense pressure.
“Sometimes, errors happen as we deal with such a large volume of cases and evidence,” the CJI noted.
The Supreme Court reiterated that Revanna remained free to approach the high court if he wanted specific remarks to be expunged.
It noted that the Karnataka High Court had already dismissed his transfer petition on September 24, observing that no material had been presented to establish judicial bias. The trial court earlier rejected the transfer request on the ground that the special MP/MLA court is specifically designated to try cases involving elected representatives.
Revanna had told the high court that the trial court rejected his transfer plea on a “technical ground” without considering the alleged bias of the presiding officer. Both the trial court and high court did not accept this contention, and the Supreme Court has now refused to interfere.
