Read Time: 05 minutes

Synopsis

The Allahabad High Court recently imposed Rs 20,000 cost on a woman who filed a plea alleging judicial bias by a District Judge in her case transfer petition. Court held the allegations 'scandalous and most irresponsible'.

The bench of Justice JJ Munir said that the allegations reflected a broader trend among citizens, wherein they perceive the authority and moral integrity of the courts negatively, potentially influenced by their experiences in other aspects of life.

In doing that, they do much harm to the justice dispensation system, Justice Munir said. 

He emphasized the need to curb this trend of making allegations against courts without any fear of consequences, stressing that such actions must be strongly discouraged in the interest of upholding the administration of justice.

Therefore, court not only rejected the revision plea but also imposed heavy cost on the petitioner. 

One Aliyari filed a civil revision plea challenging an order passed by the learned District Judge, Chandauli, rejecting the revisionist's transfer application seeking transfer of her election petition rom the Court of the Additional District Judge, F.T.C.-I, Chandauli to any other Court of competent jurisdiction.

She alleged that the husband of elected Pradhan, the respondent to the election petition, was an Advocate practising in the District Court, Chandauli and on one of the dates fixed in the matter, when she was coming out of the court, she saw the elected Pradhan's husband going inside the Presiding Officer's chamber and come out a little.

She further claimed that the respondent's husband announced amongst his associates very triumphantly that he had spoken to the Presiding Officer and the election petition would certainly be decided in his wife's favour.

Subsequently, the District Judge, Chandauli, who heard the transfer application, dismissed it with a remark that the same has been filed with an intention to delay the proceedings of the election petition.

In its decision in the revision plea, the high court opined that though it was not in agreement with the District Judge's remark that the revisionist, who was the election petitioner was delaying disposal of the election petition, however, the allegations levelled by her against the District Judge were in poor light.

Court ordered the revisionist to pay the cost imposed t through a Bank instrument drawn in favour of the Registrar General of the high court within 15 days from the date of the order. 

Case Title: Aliyari v. Ranjana And 5 Others