Read Time: 03 minutes
"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..."
A bench of Justice MR Shah, and Justice Krishna Murari, while dismissing a batch of transfer petitions, highly criticised the practice of 'demoralising judicial officers', and strongly reprimanded it.
In the matter, Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra, appeared on behalf of the Petitioners and Senior Advocate Dushyant Dave, appeared on behalf of the respondents.
The grounds on which the transfer was sought were: not getting a fair trial, and the respondents being 'local bigwigs', thereby having the potential to influence Courts; and that the FIRs were bogus, resultantly there was an apprehension on the life of petitioners . The Court while criticising the ground was of the opinion, that such allegations do not stand valid, merely because of an unfavourable order. And stated that if the parties feel aggrieved by an order so passed, the subsequent remedy is to challenge it before a higher forum.
The Court on the second ground contended by the petitioner, stated that if a party feels aggrieved by an FIR, then the subsequent remedy should be to seek a process for the same to be quashed.
The Court was of the opinion, "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 demoralise the judicial officer. In fact, such an allegation can be said to be obstructing the administration of justice".
Therefore, in order of not finding sufficient grounds, the Court dismissed the petitions.
CASE TITLE: Anupam Ghosh and Anr. vs. Faiz Mohammmed and Ors.
Please Login or Register
