Delhi High Court sets aside transfer of PMLA case from trial court judge over alleged bias

In a 41-page ruling, Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma held that there “were no sufficient reasons” to transfer the case since Judge Kumar was not heard by the district judge.

“The reputation of a judge is an important aspect of the judiciary’s credibility and the public’s trust in the legal system. The reputation of a judge is one of his most vital assets, painstakingly built over years of dedicated service. It is of utmost importance for a judge to guard this reputation as judges too, like all other individuals, have a right to protect their reputation,” the HC stated.

While the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) sets a high bar for granting bail, Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud in his speeches has flagged the refrain that trial courts are reluctant to grant bail.

“It has to be ensured that judges are treated with the same fairness and impartiality with which they are expected to treat others in their conduct and through their judgments. When the utterance or action of a judge is brought in question and given colour of bias which has the tendency of questioning the predetermined perception of the judge about granting relief in the particular roster he is holding, it is imperative that their part of story be also heard before passing any order against them,” the HC said.

The ruling also said that “one of the side-effects” of virtual hearings is the “potential for allegations to be levelled against judges and their staff based on

overheard conversations”.

“This court is also of the firm opinion that court proceedings of all courts of law in India which are widely reported these days, including the Beautiful Banters Between Bar and Bench who share a Bond of Bonhomie, have to be safeguarded from any onslaught,” the ruling said.