The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed a plea seeking transfer of a 2019 defamation case, holding that unproven allegations against a judge and counsel amount to an “attack on the majesty of law.” The Court imposed a Rs 50,000 penalty on the 89-year-old petitioner and directed the trial court to proceed expeditiously.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed a petition seeking transfer of a criminal defamation case and imposed a penalty of ₹50,000 on the petitioner, strongly criticising what it described as baseless allegations against the trial judge and the opposing counsel.
The High Court observed that making unfounded allegations against lawyers and judges directly harms the justice system and cannot be tolerated.
The order was passed by Justice Sumeet Goel on January 30 in a detailed 25-page judgment. The petition was filed by 89-year-old Dinesh Chand Bansal, who had sought transfer of a 2019 criminal defamation case under Section 500 of the IPC from the court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Panchkula, to another court within the same district, alleging bias and harassment.
Rejecting the plea, the High Court made it clear that transfer petitions are increasingly being misused by litigants to weaken judicial independence. The Court observed that many litigants wrongly treat unfavourable orders as proof of prejudice or bias on the part of judges.
Justice Goel warned that allowing such pleas on weak grounds would seriously damage the justice system and wrote,
“If this could be the foundation in transfer of a case, it will well-nigh (almost) yield anarchy in the adjudicatory process,”
adding that it would encourage litigants to indulge in court-shopping.
The Court took particularly strong exception to allegations made against the opposing lawyer, stating that attacks on advocates are not merely personal but institutional. Emphasising the importance of lawyers in the justice delivery system, Justice Goel observed,
“Any unsubstantiated attack on the professional conduct of a counsel, particularly involving the court/judicial officers, is, in essence, an attack on the majesty of law itself.”
The judgment further explained that India’s adversarial legal system depends heavily on the competence, honesty and integrity of advocates, who play a vital role in assisting courts in delivering justice.
The case arises from a criminal complaint filed in August 2019 in a Panchkula court by Tarsem Kumar Ruby, a pharmaceutical businessman and former District Governor of Rotary International, District 3080, for the year 2017–18.
Ruby alleged that Bansal, who had contested against him in Rotary elections and was unhappy with his defeat, repeatedly challenged Ruby’s selection through objections, complaints and litigation.
According to the complaint, despite Rotary International conducting multiple reviews and confirming Ruby’s nomination, Bansal continued filing civil suits and appeals. When these proceedings were dismissed with adverse remarks, Bansal’s Rotary Club membership was terminated for approaching courts without exhausting internal remedies.
Later, an FIR was registered through another individual alleging ballot tampering, in which Ruby was summoned. However, he was granted bail on the same day by the Uttarakhand High Court.
Ruby’s complaint further alleged that Bansal and others circulated a “misleading and false letter” among Rotary members and WhatsApp groups, falsely claiming that Ruby had been taken into custody. The complaint stated that this created a wrong impression, caused him mental distress, and damaged his reputation within Rotary International and society at large.
It was alleged that the
“deliberate circulation of defamatory material”
caused serious and irreparable harm to Ruby’s standing and goodwill.
In February 2025, Bansal filed an application seeking transfer of the case, making serious allegations against the trial magistrate. He claimed that the magistrate was “in connivance with the complainant” and that the court was fixing hearings twice a week to harass him, despite his advanced age and the fact that he resides around 250 kilometres away in Dehradun.
The transfer application further alleged that the complainant was “publicly claiming” that he had paid a large sum of money to the magistrate through his counsel and that the verdict would be delivered in his favour. It was also claimed that Bansal came to know through a former District Governor that the complainant had approached the presiding officer, who had “assured to convict” both accused persons.
These allegations were earlier rejected by the Sessions Judge, Panchkula, in August 2025. The Sessions Court observed that the case was pending since 2019 and was included in the action plan for 2024–25. The court found that the accused appeared to be delaying the trial on one ground or another and held that a mere fear or apprehension of injustice cannot be a valid reason for transfer.
While deciding the present petition, the High Court examined the legal principles governing transfer of criminal cases under Section 408 of the Criminal Procedure Code, now Section 448 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Referring to several Supreme Court judgments, Justice Goel stressed that although the right to a fair trial is part of Article 21 of the Constitution, the power to transfer cases must be exercised with great caution and only in rare and exceptional situations.
The Court found that Bansal failed to produce any reliable or convincing material to show bias or prejudice on the part of the trial court. It held that the claims were vague and unsubstantiated, stating,
“The allegations raised by the petitioner are general in nature and do not inspire confidence so as to warrant transfer of the proceedings.”
The Court also noted that while the complaint has remained pending since 2019, delay by itself cannot be a valid ground for transfer, especially when such delay cannot be attributed solely to the complainant or the trial court.
Justice Goel strongly criticised the petitioner’s attempt to malign the trial judge and the opposing counsel, stating that such conduct deserves to be
“deprecated and responded with abhorrence.”
However, taking into account Bansal’s advanced age and the fact that he had no previous record of making such scandalous allegations, the Court refrained from imposing heavy exemplary costs.
Instead, the High Court imposed a penalty of ₹50,000, directing that ₹25,000 be deposited with the Haryana State Legal Services Authority, Panchkula, and the remaining ₹25,000 be paid to Ruby’s counsel.
ALSO READ: Allahabad HC: District Judges at Risk of Transfer Over Bias Allegation
The Court further directed that if the amount is not deposited within two weeks, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panchkula, must inform the Deputy Commissioner, Panchkula, who shall recover the amount as arrears of land revenue.
The High Court clarified that all observations made in the order will not affect the merits of the pending defamation case and directed the trial court to proceed with the matter expeditiously and strictly in accordance with law.
Click Here to Read More Reports On Trade Unions
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
