Mere Dissatisfaction With Judicial Order No Ground to Seek Transfer of Cases: MP High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has dismissed an application seeking transfer of a writ petition and connected matters from the Bench hearing the case, holding that a litigant’s subjective apprehension regarding impartiality cannot justify transfer of judicial proceedings in the absence of objective material indicating bias. The Court further observed that unfounded allegations against the judiciary have the potential to erode public confidence in the administration of justice.

Justice Himanshu Joshi passed the order while dealing with an application filed in Writ Petition, Thaneshwar Gole and Others v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others. Petitioner No.1, Thaneshwar Gole, appeared in person, while the State was represented by Government Advocate Priyanka Mishra.

The applicant sought transfer of the pending writ petition and all connected matters to another Bench of the High Court. He also requested that no matter concerning him be listed before the present Bench. The plea was founded on allegations arising out of an order passed on April 16, 2026, in a criminal case in which the applicant had been a respondent.

According to him, submissions advanced by his counsel were not reflected in that order, leading to a bona fide apprehension that he may not receive an impartial hearing. He further claimed that the subsequent listing of the writ petition before the same Bench raised doubts regarding the credibility of the Court.

Rejecting these contentions, the Court underscored that the justice delivery system functions on a foundational presumption of judicial integrity, impartiality and independence. It observed that a mere subjective apprehension, regardless of how strongly it is felt by a litigant, cannot become a valid basis for transfer unless supported by cogent material showing a real likelihood of bias or denial of a fair hearing.

The Court noted that the allegations were based primarily on the applicant’s grievance that certain submissions were not recorded in a judicial order. It clarified that a judicial order speaks for itself and that the manner in which submissions are reflected cannot, by itself, be treated as evidence of prejudice.

The Bench observed that while dictating the earlier order, every effort had been made to accurately capture the substance of the arguments advanced before it. At the same time, it emphasized that courts are not obligated to record each and every submission made by counsel, particularly when such submissions are irrelevant to the issues requiring adjudication.

“The Court is not obligated to record each and every submission advanced by counsel, particularly those that bear no relevance to the issues in controversy,” the order stated. It added that judicial orders are required to reflect material facts, applicable law and substantive arguments having a direct bearing on the outcome of the case.

Addressing the allegation regarding listing of the matter, the Court held that roster allocation and listing of cases are governed by established administrative procedures independent of judicial decision-making. It described the applicant’s allegations as wholly unfounded and observed that the averments made in the transfer application cast unwarranted aspersions on the functioning of the Court without any supporting material.

The Bench also noted that the writ petition had remained pending for more than six years and had now reached its turn for adjudication. It remarked that merely because a litigant is dissatisfied with an outcome, allegations questioning the impartiality of the Court cannot be justified. “Such allegations, devoid of substantive merit, risk eroding public confidence in the institution, which rests fundamentally upon trust, fairness, and the rule of law,” the Court observed.

Holding that transfer cannot be sought as a matter of choice, convenience or subjective distrust, the Court dismissed the application for want of any objective basis. However, considering the nature of the allegations and the prayer seeking withdrawal of the matter from its roster, the Court directed that the issue be placed before the Chief Justice on the administrative side for consideration in accordance with law and roster directions.

Case Title: Thaneshwar Gole v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others

Date of Order: April 28, 2026

Bench: Justice Himanshu Joshi