Read Time: 06 minutes

Synopsis

The Kerala High Court underlined that a judicial officer cannot be “browbeaten to suit the convenience of a party,” stressing that mere apprehensions, without strong substantiating evidence, are insufficient grounds for transferring cases between courts. The court dismissed a transfer petition imposing a cost of Rs. 15,000 on the petitioner.

Noushad Flourish, the petitioner, sought to transfer three family dispute cases pending in the Family Court, Thalassery, citing alleged bias by the Presiding Officer. He claimed orders favoured his wife, Akhila. It was further alleged that adverse submissions were accepted without verification, and that hearing dates were manipulated against him. Similar bias allegations had been raised against two prior Presiding Officers and two similar petitions seeking transfer, were filed by the petitioner. The counsel for the petitioner also filed a complaint with the High Court’s Registrar General, asserting the need for transfer to ensure impartial adjudication.

The court, presided over by Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas, clarified, “Adverse orders by themselves cannot be reasons to doubt the integrity of the judicial officer. The aggrieved certainly have remedies before the higher forum.”

The court stated, “A mere allegation of bias by itself can weaken the very edifice of the judicial system and even erode the confidence of the Officer. An allegation of bias against a Judicial Officer is a matter of serious concern. Reckoning the nature of duties bestowed upon a judicial officer and allegations of bias cannot be permitted to be raised without any basis and on mere surmises and assumptions,” emphasising that the pleadings in the present transfer petition contained only vague allegations of bias, lacking any specific grounds that justify a transfer.

The court further emphasised that complaint filed by the petitioner’s advocate with the Registrar General could not serve as the sole basis for such a transfer, stating that, “In the instant case, only bald allegations have been raised against the Presiding Officer of the Family Court…If reliance is placed on such a complaint alone, every case can be transferred at the instance of an Advocate who feels that the court is not accepting his propositions.”

The court noted that this third transfer request merely repeated prior, unsubstantiated claims of bias against previous judges and reflected a pattern of alleging partiality whenever proceedings did not favour the petitioner. “Such vituperative denigration of a judicial officer by a litigant has to be dealt with sternly and cannot be tolerated under any circumstances whatsoever,” the court remarked.

Consequently, the High Court dismissed the transfer petition and imposed costs on the petitioner, directing payment to the District Legal Services Authority, Thalassery, within four weeks.

 

Cause Title: Noushad Flourish v Akhila [ TR.P(CRL.) NO. 43 OF 2024]