‘Forum hunting must be dealt with iron hand’: Punjab and Haryana High Court junks bail given by magistrate to ‘relative’

“The unscrupulous litigants will indulge themselves in Court/forum hunting which tendency needs to be curbed with an iron hand,” the court observed.

The order continued, “A judge may unknowingly have a distant familial connection with a litigant, even if unaware; the test is whether a reasonable, informed person would apprehend bias. Once such a connection is known and may raise doubt, judicial propriety requires the judge to recuse from the case.”

The judge also quoted the famous maxim of renowned British judge Lord Chief Justice Hewart as saying, “Justice must not only be done, but manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done.”

The order added, “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/.”

Case

The petitioner before the high court was the original complainant in the criminal case. He got an FIR registered against the accused on December 12, 2023, under Sections 195A (threatening any person to give false evidence) and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the IPC. Section 201 (causing disappearance of evidence) subsequently added to the case.

The complainant alleged that the regular bail was granted to the accused on December 31, 2023, by a magistrate court in Ambala.

He further alleged that on the same day, the accused also registered an FIR against the complainant, his uncle and his family members and threatened them.

The complainant claimed that the bail order was granted by the magistrate who was the accused’s cousin.

Notably, the state filed a compliance report confirming that the magistrate and the accused were “distant relatives”.

Decision

While setting aside the bail order, the high court directed the accused to reappear before the chief judicial magistrate or duty magistrate, Ambala, by December 23, to seek fresh bail, acknowledging the significant lapse of time since the original order.

The court said that the facts and material on record clearly show that the magistrate was aware of her familial relationship with the accused. From the perspective of a reasonable person, this gives rise to a clear apprehension of “bias in law”, making the impugned order legally unsustainable from the outset.

Key findings

• Constitution of judiciary as a distinct, separate and a vital third pillar organ of the state is premised upon the climacteric objective of serving a paramount purpose, to provide a dispassionate and neutral forum for the adjudication and definitive resolution of the lis before it.
• Constitution of Judiciary, as a separate organ is the linchpin of the rule of law, ensuring that the adjudication is done sine ira et studio i.e. without anger and passion and is inherently free from any taint of biasness or personal predilection.
• “Principle of neutrality” is so profound, that it constitutes one of the two cardinal tenets of natural justice (audi alteram partem being the other), which finds its most eloquent reflection in the legal maxim Nemo Debet Esse Judes in Propria Causa i.e. no man ought to be a Judge in his own cause.
• A judge having personal stake/interest in the subject matter or the outcome, howsoever small, is viewed by the law with inherent suspicion, as it adversely compromises the integrity of judicial process.
• If a person holding the scales (of justice) has a finger on one of the pens, the weighing process is not only flawed but is rendered a legal nullity and the decision so arrived at is non est in law.
• The judge, must at all times, be a figure beyond all reasonable reproach, demonstrating an absolute lack of interest in the subject matter as well as the result/outcome.
• Credibility of the justice administration system and judicial institutions is premised not merely on the effective enforcement of the letter of law, but also on the fact that judicial process is inherently fair and is devoid not only of any prejudice(s)/bias but also of any perception of prejudice(s)/bias.
• Litmus test for bias hinges on an objective standard: Whether a right-minded/reasonable individual, fully apprised of the facts, would come to a conclusion that, due to any pecuniary/personal interest either in the subject matter or the outcome, there existed a ‘real likelihood of bias’ on the judge’s part.
• If this ‘real likelihood of bias’ is shown to exist; even if the decision were otherwise factually accurate and legally impeccable; the consequent adjudication is deemed vitiated in toto, and stands non est in law.
• It is the taint of perceived partiality/bias/prejudice and not necessarily the existence of actual judicial malice which acts as the fatal flaw.
• While ruminating a claim of bias/prejudice, a judge must assess, not only his/her subjective capacity to remain uninfluenced but also critically gauge the objective perception of impartiality that his involvement casts upon the proceedings.
• To fail this latter test, is to risk eroding the public confidence in the justice administration system, an outcome far graver than a mere procedural error.
• Proper approach for a judge is not to undertake a subjective self assessment of their own state of mind; i.e. asking, “Am I biased?” but rather to apply an objective test that considers the perspective of the litigants or the public.
• Focus must be on whether, having regard to all the circumstances, a fair-minded and informed observer would conclude that there was a real possibility or a reasonable apprehension of bias.