The Supreme Court has ruled that a judge cannot be presumed to be biased against a party merely because a relative of that party holds a position as a police constable or as court staff, and has set aside an order of the Telangana High Court which had transferred a criminal case on grounds of alleged bias. The appeals arose from a transfer petition in which the husband of a complainant sought to move proceedings from the court at Sangareddy to Hyderabad, claiming that the presiding judge would be biased in view of his wife’s relatives being employed as a head constable in the local police station and in the District Court establishment. The High Court had granted the transfer without hearing the wife, who was impleaded as a respondent but was not present in court, prompting an appeal to the Supreme Court challenging that decision. The Supreme Court examined the basis for the transfer, observing that the transfer had been ordered solely on the premise that the relatives’ official positions created a reasonable apprehension of bias against the judge adjudicating the matter. The bench, however, held that such allegations, by themselves, did not constitute sufficient grounds to presume bias or partiality on the part of the adjudicating judge, emphasising that mere association of a litigant’s relative with law enforcement or court staff cannot be equated with judicial prejudice. The Court noted that one of the relatives relied upon for advancing the bias claim had already been transferred out of the relevant court establishment, further undermining the basis for alleging any undue influence over the judicial process. On this reasoning, the Supreme Court concluded that the grounds put forth for the transfer were inconsequential and did not satisfy the threshold for establishing a reasonable apprehension of bias against the judge, thereby invalidating the High Court’s transfer order.
In setting aside the transfer, the Supreme Court directed that the criminal case be returned to the court of the Additional Judicial Magistrate First Class at Sangareddy. It clarified that if the case had been closed by the transferee court on any ground, including default of appearance, it must be restored and retransferred without delay, ensuring the continuity of proceedings at the original court. The Court also addressed ancillary concerns raised by the appellant regarding personal safety and logistical difficulties, suggesting that the husband could seek exemptions from personal appearance, appear through legal counsel or via video conferencing, or apply for adequate police protection, which the Magistrate should consider favourably where appropriate. The Supreme Court emphasised that its observations were confined to the issue of transfer based on alleged bias and would not influence the final adjudication of the case on its merits, leaving the substantive evidence and legal issues to be determined in the normal course of trial. The ruling underscores that allegations of bias must be founded on cogent and relevant factors that demonstrate a reasonable apprehension of prejudice, and that employment of a party’s relative in law enforcement or court administration does not, without more, justify the conclusion that a judge would be biased.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.