Erroneous orders don’t imply judicial bias: Punjab and Haryana HC

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that erroneous orders passed by trial judges do not imply judicial bias and cannot be the basis for alleging that the presiding officer is incapable of conducting a fair trial. Justice Sumeet Goel asserted judicial officers might make mistakes, but the errors could be corrected through proper judicial channels, and must not be equated with bias or unfairness.

Referring to increasing trend of litigants alleging bias whenever an adverse order was passed, Justice Goel observed: “There is yet another aspect, nay disturbing aspect, which craves attention. The litigants, sometimes, tend to seek transfer of trial etc. from a particular court by alleging that the presiding officer is biased, or a wrong/illegal order has been passed by the presiding officer on account of which apprehension of bias or failure of fair trial is based.”

Justice Goel asserted such conduct was often a deliberate ploy by the litigants to shop for favourable forums. “It must be borne in mind that a presiding officer/trial judge who discharges his duty may commit errors sometimes. The same can well be rectified by a higher/superior court, but the factum of an order passed by the presiding officer/trial judge having been found erroneous by a high/superior court can, by no stretch of the imagination, ipso facto lead to an inference that such presiding officer/trial judge is biased or influenced, or that the prospect of a fair trial has been compromised.”

The court also stressed that a presiding officer must not give in to pressure from litigants. “A presiding officer/trial judge has to perform his duty and not succumb to the pressure put by litigant(s) by making callous allegations. He is not expected to show unnecessary sensitivity to such allegations and recuse himself from the case.”

Justice Goel added that the judiciary was operating under significant stress, with stakeholders “literally and figuratively, breathing down their necks.” Errors were bound to happen under such conditions, but to link them to bias or unfairness was both inappropriate and unjustified.

Judicial officers, the court said, must not become targets of “aspersions” simply because a litigant found an order unacceptable or unpalatable. “Pleading for transfer of trial by such litigant is plainly subterfuge. If this could be the foundation in transfer of a case, it will well-nigh yield anarchy in the adjudicatory process.”

Calling for strict measures to curb the trend, the court warned against the rise of unscrupulous litigants resorting to court/forum hunting. Before parting with the order, the Bench quoted an age-old adage approved by the Supreme Court: “It has also to be remembered that the lower judicial officers mostly work under a charged atmosphere and are constantly under a psychological pressure with all the contestants and their lawyers almost breathing down their necks—more correctly up to their nostrils.”