3 min readNew DelhiAug 13, 2026 01:00 PM IST
First published on: Aug 13, 2026 at 01:00 PM IST
The Delhi High Court has said that allegations against a judicial officer “cannot be made lightly” and slapped a Rs 25,000 fine on a man for alleging bias against a trial court judge on the basis of oral observations made during his case’s hearing.
Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar was hearing the plea of one Mohammad Ahmad who had sought transfer of his commercial suit being heard by a Delhi trial court judge to a commercial court. According to the litigant, the court passed oral observations, thereby, creating an apprehension of “unfair adjudication”. The man further claimed that the judge was disinclined to hear an application.
Justice Shankar on August 10 said, “Allegations of such nature against a judicial officer cannot be lightly made merely on the basis of oral observations or statements made during the course of a hearing. A judicial proceeding necessarily involves interaction between the court and the counsel appearing before it, and observations made during the course of such proceedings cannot, by themselves, be treated as a determination of the issues arising between the parties.”
The court opined that the plea before it was filed with an “apprehension” without any sufficient material and amounted to an “abuse of the process” of court.
Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar directed the petitioner to deposit Rs 25,000 costs with the Delhi High Court Bar Association within four weeks. (Image enhanced using AI)
‘Can’t transfer case because litigant feels bias’
- Allegations ought not to be made routinely or founded merely upon an interpretation placed by a litigant upon the oral exchanges taking place during the course of proceedings.
- A case cannot be transferred merely because a litigant feels a judge may be biased based on oral remarks during a hearing.
- Such allegations must have sufficient material to support them, and making them without proper basis is not conducive to the administration of justice.
The case involved a commercial dispute between the litigant and another person. His counsel submitted that the petitioner had a genuine and reasonable apprehension that he would not secure a fair adjudication before the trial court. It was further alleged that the trial court had on certain occasions, “extended undue indulgence to the respondents’ counsel” over his detention. The apprehension was not fanciful or imaginary but arose from the manner in which the proceedings had allegedly been conducted, the counsel added.
The high court, however, said that the allegations against a judicial officer cannot be made lightly based on oral remarks during a hearing. It noted that the petition did not show any trial court decision that had adversely affected the litigant’s rights due to alleged bias or preferential treatment.
“The present petition does not point out any adjudication by the trial court whereby the petitioner’s substantive rights have been determined adversely on account of any alleged bias or preferential treatment,” it said.
The transfer petition and pending applications were dismissed with costs of Rs 25,000. The amount was directed to be deposited with the Delhi High Court Bar Association within four weeks. Ahmad was also directed to place proof of the deposit on record within one week thereafter.
The Delhi High Court said oral observations during a hearing cannot by themselves be treated as a determination of the dispute. (Image generated using AI)
Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar directed the petitioner to deposit Rs 25,000 costs with the Delhi High Court Bar Association within four weeks. (Image enhanced using AI)
Share
