“Judges, in fulfilling their responsibilities, must uphold the principles of fairness and impartiality in their adjudications and judgments. However, if a judge’s conduct is called into question, the principle of audi alteram partem [letting the other side be heard as well] must also be applied to them,” stated Justice Sharma.
NEW DELHI: On Tuesday (May 28th): The Delhi High Court laid out detailed guidelines for principal district and session judges concerning the handling of transfer applications based on allegations of judicial bias.
The Delhi High Court emphasized the importance of protecting the reputation of judicial officers and affirmed that judges have the right to address allegations of bias made against them in the course of handling a case.
Key Directives from the Delhi High Court
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma emphasized that any transfer of cases on the grounds of alleged bias must be handled with utmost due diligence. The primary directives include:
- Before a case is transferred due to alleged bias, the comments of the judge from whom the transfer is sought must be mandatorily invited and considered.
- The application for transfer must be decided only after these comments are reviewed, taking into account the principles of real apprehension of bias.
- All relevant circumstances surrounding the case must be considered when deciding on such applications.
These guidelines were issued while setting aside an earlier order by the Principal District and Sessions Judge of Rouse Avenue Court, which had transferred the Bhushan Steel money laundering case. The transfer was initially based on a remark allegedly made by the presiding judge, which was perceived as potentially biased.
The judge had reportedly commented to the court staff,
“ED (Enforcement Directorate) matters main, kaun si bail hoti hai? (Who gets bail in ED matters?”.
READ ALSO: K Kavitha BRS Leader Withdraws Petition Challenging ED Summons
Justice Sharma emphasized the importance of maintaining the confidentiality and integrity of the relationship between judges and court staff. Such interactions should not become subject to scrutiny by litigants or their legal representatives, as this could undermine judicial independence and confidentiality.
The court concluded that the judge’s remark did not demonstrate any real apprehension of bias against the accused, Ajay S Mittal, nor did it indicate any partiality towards the Enforcement Directorate (ED).
“Judges, in fulfilling their responsibilities, must uphold the principles of fairness and impartiality in their adjudications and judgments. However, if a judge’s conduct is called into question, the principle of audi alteram partem [letting the other side be heard as well] must also be applied to them,” stated Justice Sharma. “Applying audi alteram partem in cases involving judges ensures judicial accountability while safeguarding the judges’ right to defend their actions and decisions.”
Justice Sharma emphasized that judges build their reputations over years of dedicated service, making it crucial for them to protect their integrity.
The emphasis on judges’ right to be heard arose in the context of an Enforcement Directorate (ED) plea challenging a local court’s May 1 order, which transferred the Bhushan Steel money laundering case from Judge Jagdish Kumar. The transfer followed allegations that Judge Kumar had remarked,
“Let them take dates; where is the question of bail in ED matters?”
On May 1 order was issued after Ajay S. Mittal, one of the accused, filed a transfer application alleging that Judge Kumar was predisposed to denying his bail. Mittal claimed that his wife, who was attending the proceedings virtually, overheard Judge Kumar making the comments in a conversation with court staff.
The district judge granted Mittal’s plea, acknowledging his apprehension of Judge Kumar’s “probable bias” in favor of the ED and noting it could not be dismissed as unfounded.
The ED filed a petition before the High court, arguing that the district judge had transferred the case based on Mittal’s wife’s affidavit without seeking a report from Judge Kumar. The ED contended that the “wild allegations” against Judge Kumar should not be accepted as “gospel truth,” especially since none of the lawyers present during the hearing heard the alleged remarks.
In his 41-page order, Justice Sharma noted that a judge’s offhand comment to a staff member—who is neither involved in decision-making nor has any stake in the case outcome—cannot justify the assumption of bias. He stressed that the relationship between the judge and staff should remain confidential and not be subject to scrutiny by litigants or lawyers.
The High court expressed concern over the increasing tendency of litigants to post abusive or inappropriate comments in the chat box during video conferencing. It called for the creation of guidelines to address this issue.
“The growing tendency to write abusive or inappropriate comments in the chat box during video conferencing, using defamatory and contemptuous language against judges, has been noted by the courts recently. This case, where bias allegations were based on an overheard conversation between the judge and staff when the court was not in session, is particularly concerning,” the high court remarked.
The court set aside the transfer order, criticizing the district judge for not allowing Judge Kumar to respond to the bias allegations, thereby undermining fairness and natural justice principles. The court directed the district judge to reconsider the matter after soliciting comments from Judge Kumar.
READ ALSO: Delhi Court Questions ED on Doctor Statements in PMLA Case
To ensure widespread adherence to these new guidelines, the High Court directed that the judgment and accompanying guidelines be disseminated to all Principal District and Sessions Judges in Delhi. Furthermore, a copy of the judgment will be sent to the Director (Academics) at the Delhi Judicial Academy for incorporation into training programs for judicial officers.
In this case, the Enforcement Directorate was represented by Special Counsel Zoheb Hossain and advocate Kartik Sabharwal. Senior Advocates Sandeep Sethi and Mohit Mathur, along with advocates Sanyam Khetarpal, Deepak Goel, and Shreya, represented Ajay S Mittal.
Case Title: Directorate of Enforcement v Ajay S Mittal
