‘Curbed with iron hand’: Punjab and Haryana High Court refuses to transfer 89-year-old’s trial over ‘imaginary anxieties’

The order added that the right to an impartial trial is sacrosanct; it is equally imperative to recognise a disconcerting emerging trend, where the machinery of transfer is frequently weaponised to undermine judicial independence.

Highlighting that the litigants’ tendency to indulge in court/forum hunting needs to be curbed with an iron hand, the court said,” Litigants often misinterpret an adverse or unfavourable judicial order as an indication of inherent bias, leading to a proliferation of unfounded transfer applications that threaten the very stability of the legal process.”

Findings

• The power of transfer functions as a residual safety valve, insulating the trial process from prejudice, bias, or procedural unfairness.
• By providing the sessions court with necessary ‘teeth’ to remove a case from an environment that may compromise the integrity of the judicial process, it ensures that court proceedings are being conducted with clinical detachment and impartiality.
• This right is not merely statutory but is an intrinsic element of the right to life and personal liberty as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
• The trust and fidelity of the common populace in the functioning of judicial institutions is the non-negotiable lifeblood of the justice delivery system, sine qua non for which is that the adjudication/outcome is perceptibly free from even a shadow of prejudice/bias.
• The presiding officer/trial Judge has to perform his duty and not succumb to the pressure put by the litigant(s) by making callous allegations.
• He is not expected to show unnecessary sensitivity to such allegations and recuse himself from the case.
• Judicial Officers often function and discharge their duties in an environment that is overloaded with various stakeholders, literally and figuratively, breathing down their necks.
• A litigant who misuses the process of law or takes liberties with the truth should be left in no doubt about the consequences to follow.
• Mere apprehension or imaginary anxiety in the minds of a litigant does not afford an occasion for transfer of the proceedings, and rather, the averments ought to be substantiated by some cogent material.
• The legislative intent is that the power of transfer is never reduced to a tool for ‘forum shopping’ but is reserved for cases where the impartiality of the trial is genuinely imperiled.
•  If litigants are allowed to avoid courts they feel uncomfortable in and make this a foundation in the transfer of a case, it will well-nigh yield anarchy in the adjudicatory process.
• The Indian Judicial System, operating primarily on an adversarial framework, inherently relies on the advocates of rival parties to facilitate the effective conduct of judicial proceedings.
• Advocates play a pivotal role in this process, acting as essential instruments in the administration of justice.
• Any unsubstantiated attack on the professional conduct of a counsel, particularly involving the court/judicial officer(s), is, in essence, an attack on the majesty of law itself.

Background

• The matter originated from a 2019 criminal complaint under Section 500 (punishment for defamation) of the IPC by a complainant pharmaceutical businessman and former rotary international district governor.
• The complainant alleged that the petitioner, a rival candidate for the governor post, had circulated misleading letters and WhatsApp messages to damage his reputation after losing an election.
• The petitioner, an 89-year-old man, residing in Dehradun, sought to transfer the trial from the magistrate’s court to another court.
• He cited his advanced age, distance, and multiple ailments, including heart and kidney problems.
  In his transfer plea, the petitioner raised serious allegations against the presiding officer, claiming the judge was in connivance with the complainant.
• The petitioner further alleged he had heard through a third party that the complainant had “paid a high amount” to the magistrate through counsel and was assured of a conviction.
• He also claimed the court intentionally harassed him by making him wait for hours despite his health.
• The sessions court, Panchkula, had previously dismissed these claims on August 8, 2025, noting that the accused was merely attempting to delay proceedings in a case already marked under an “action plan” for expedited disposal.