While taking a very strong and grim view of the growing dangerous, despicable and derogatory tendency of the litigants indulging in making serious personal allegations against judicial officers that is the Judges themselves whenever orders adverse to them are passed at their own whims and fancies, the Supreme Court in an extremely laudable, learned, landmark and latest judgment titled Anupam Ghosh and Anr. vs Faiz Mohammed and Ors. in Transfer Petition (C) Nos. 2331-2334 of 2021 and cited in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 751 that was pronounced finally on September 2, 2022 in exercise of its civil original jurisdiction while taking the right stand in dismissing a transfer petition minced just no words in observing in simple, straightforward and suave language that, “Nowadays, there is a tendency to make such allegations against the judicial officers whenever the orders are passed against a litigant and the orders are not liked by the concerned litigant.” We have earlier also seen in many cases where the Apex Court has strongly deprecated the condemnable practice of “Bench hunting” or “forum shopping” which directly raises question mark on the integrity of a particular Judge without any strong proof which cannot be definitely ever justified as this directly affects the reputation of the whole of judiciary as an institution and demoralizes the concerned Judge most whose integrity is directly placed under the cloud of doubt without any substantial proof whatsoever!
It must be mentioned here that it was very rightly pointed out in news column in Business Standard newspaper dated December 19, 2014 titled that, “Litigants can’t be allowed ‘forum-shopping’ to choose court: SC” wherein it was mentioned that, “Unscrupulous litigants cannot be allowed to even think of indulging in “forum-shopping” to get favourable decisions and it is a “deprecable conduct” in the field of law, the Supreme Court has said. A bench of justices Dipak Misra and U U Lalit referred to the “principle of judicial decorum, discipline and propriety” and said if a judge, who hears and declines relief to a litigant, should be adjudicating the subsequent pleas if he is very much there. “On a perusal of the aforesaid authorities, it is clear to us that the learned judge, who has declined to entertain the prayer for grant of bail, if available, should hear the second bail application or the successive bail applications. It is in consonance with the principle of judicial decorum, discipline and propriety.” “Needless to say, unless such principle is adhered to, there is enormous possibility of forum-shopping which has no sanction in law and definitely, has no sanctity. If the same is allowed to prevail, it is likely to usher in anarchy, whim and caprice and in the ultimate eventuate shake the faith in the adjudicating system. This cannot be allowed to be encouraged,” the court said. The court’s observations came in a verdict on an appeal filed by Delhi-based Jagmohan Bahl who had come to the apex court after his bail was cancelled by the Delhi High Court. Bahl, accused of criminal breach of trust, misappropriation of money and cheating a prospective property buyer, was first denied anticipatory bail by a sessions judge. Later, he again moved the bail plea which was granted by another sessions judge of the same court. The High Court cancelled Bahl’s bail on grounds including that the plea should have been heard and decided by the judge who had adjudicated upon his first application. The apex court endorsed the view taken by the High Court and held that a litigant cannot be allowed to even think that he can indulge in “forum shopping” to get a favorable order. “Unscrupulous litigants are not to be allowed even to remotely entertain the idea that they can engage in forum-shopping, a deprecable conduct in the field of law,” the apex court said. It, however, granted bail to Bahl, saying the allegations in the FIR relate to execution of an agreement.”
More to the point: How can judiciary be ever allowed to be held to ransom by such club of litigants who believe most strongly in “Bench hunting” or “forum shopping” without giving any evidence to substantiate what they allege so very easily? This reprehensible tendency has not just to be strongly discouraged but must be given a full stop now! It cannot be allowed to continue unabated, unchecked, unaccounted and unpunished!
There can be no gainsaying that if no strong proof is given by the litigant who directly questions the very integrity of Judge making serious allegations whenever orders adverse to them are passed must be made to produce the requisite evidence which they have to prove against the Judge whom they allege that they suffer bias from and if they fail to provide any evidence then they must be definitely prosecuted and made to suffer not just punishment in jail but also heavy compensation to the Judge against whom they made serious allegation without any substantial poof whatsoever! Of course, this will go a long way in making litigants also equally accountable just like Judges who are in many cases transferred without any reasonable ground on the mere complaint of a litigant. It will also ensure that Judges are not subjected to raw discrimination and harassed, humiliated and harangued for no fault of theirs!
It must be mentioned here that one of the grounds that was taken in the Transfer Petition under Section 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure was that the petitioners believe that they are not getting a fair trial as the respondents being local bigwigs are able to influence the local Court. It is definitely most heartening to note that the Bench of Apex Court comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice MR Shah and Hon’ble Mr Justice Krishna Murari minced absolutely no words at all in deprecating such a reprehensible stand and the ground on which the proceedings are sought to be transferred. The Bench observed most unambiguously that, “Merely because some Orders are passed on judicial side (in the present case in the execution proceedings) which may be against the petitioners, it cannot be said that the Court, which passed the order was influenced. If the petitioners are aggrieved by any judicial order, the proper remedy would be to challenge the same before higher forum. But merely because some Orders adverse to them are passed by the Court, it cannot be said that the Orders on judicial side are passed under influence. Nowadays, there is a tendency to make such allegations against the judicial Officers whenever the orders are passed against a litigant and the orders are not liked by the concerned litigant. We deprecate such a practice. If such a practice is continued, it will ultimately demoralize the judicial officer. In fact, such an allegation can be said to be obstructing the administration of justice.”
At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment authored by the Bench of Apex Court comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice MR Shah and Hon’ble Mr Justice Krishna Murari sets the ball rolling by first and foremost putting forth in the opening para that, “We have heard Shri Sidharth Luthra, learned Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the Petitioners and Shri Dushyant Dave, learned Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the contesting respondents.”
To put things in perspective, the Bench then envisages in the next para of this learned judgment that, “The present Transfer Petitions have been filed under Section 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking transfer of (i) Execution Petition No. 34 of 2021 titled as “M/s Anondita Healthcare & Anr. vs. Faiz Mohammed & Ors.”, (ii) Civil Application No. 15 of 2021 titled as “Swear Health Care Private Limited & Anr. vs. M/s Anondita Healthcare & Ors.”, (iii) Civil Application No. 16 of 2021 titled as “Swear Health Care Private Limited & Anr. vs. M/s Anondita Healthcare & Ors.” and (iv) Application No. 18 of 2021 titled as “M/s Anondita Healthcare & Anr. vs. Swear Health Care Private Limited & Ors.”, all pending before the learned District and Session Judge, Dhaulpur (Rajasthan) to the Court of learned District and Sessions Judge, Noida.”
Most significantly, the Bench then lays down in the next para what constitutes the cornerstone of this brilliant judgment wherein it is encapsulated postulating that, “One of the grounds on which the proceedings are sought to be transferred is that the petitioners believe that they are not getting a fair trial and the respondents being local bigwigs are able to influence the local Court. We deprecate such a stand and the ground on which the proceedings are sought to be transferred. Merely because some Orders are passed on judicial side (in the present case in the execution proceedings) which may be against the petitioners, it cannot be said that the Court, which passed the order was influenced. If the petitioners are aggrieved by any judicial order, the proper remedy would be to challenge the same before higher forum. But merely because some Orders adverse to them are passed by the Court, it cannot be said that the Orders on judicial side are passed under influence. Nowadays, there is a tendency to make such allegations against the judicial Officers whenever the orders are passed against a litigant and the orders are not liked by the concerned litigant. We deprecate such a practice. If such a practice is continued, it will ultimately demoralize the judicial officer. In fact, such an allegation can be said to be obstructing the administration of justice.”
Most forthrightly, the Bench then further hastens to add in the next para of this extremely commendable judgment that, “The another ground that, when the warrant issued by the learned Executing Court was sought to be executed, a false criminal FIR was filed and therefore, there is an apprehension on the life of the petitioners are concerned and the submission that the FIR is bogus is concerned, at the outset, it is required to be noted that if the petitioners are aggrieved by the FIR, the remedy would have been to approach the quashing of the same. It is reported that the closure report (which is disputed by Mr. Dushyant Dave, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the respondents) is filed so far as the FIR is concerned. The aforesaid cannot be a ground to transfer the proceedings. No ground is made out to transfer any of the proceedings as sought to be transferred.”
Finally, the Bench then concludes by holding aptly in the final para of this noteworthy judgment that, “The Transfer Petitions stand dismissed, accordingly.”
All said and done, what this most remarkable, robust, rational, refreshing and recent judgment has served to do most precisely is to send a very loud and clear message to one and all litigants that they cannot be allowed to indiscriminately indulge in “Bench hunting” or “forum shopping” on one pretext or the other like directly raising question mark on the very integrity of any particular Judge without any proof whatsoever which directly serves to denigrate the very reputation of the judiciary in the eyes of the common person and demoralizes hugely the Judge whose integrity is directly placed under a big question mark which is most reprehensible and cannot be ever justified by anyone without any prima facie proof to prove what is alleged so easily every now and then at the drop of a hat by a litigant. One fervently hopes that our lawmakers taking cue from this most forthright judgment would definitely step in now and make the requisite amendments in our penal laws most promptly so that those who dare to question the very integrity of Judges without any strong proof are made to pay through their nose and cool their heels for some time in jail also! This is definitely the crying need of the hour also! There can be certainly just no denying or disputing it!
Sanjeev Sirohi