Judges Need Not Maintain ‘Sphinx-Like’ Silence in Court: Allahabad High Court Rejects Bias Claim

The Allahabad High Court has held that judges are not expected to adopt a “sphinx-like” silence during court proceedings and that active judicial engagement cannot by itself be treated as evidence of bias, while dismissing a plea seeking transfer of an arbitration appeal pending before a commercial court in Agra.

Justice Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava passed the order on a transfer application filed by M/s Virola International under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking transfer of an arbitration appeal of 2025 from the court of the Presiding Officer, Commercial Court No. 1, Agra, to another commercial court.

Court observed that during the course of hearings, a presiding officer is entitled to actively engage with the matter by putting questions, seeking clarifications and indicating prima facie views to facilitate adjudication.

“It cannot be expected that the Judges should be silent without expressing any opinion; a ‘sphinx-like’ attitude is not expected from the presiding officer,” the court said.

The dispute arose out of commercial transactions between the company and respondent Smt. Sunita Sachdeva. The respondent had initiated arbitration proceedings seeking recovery of substantial amounts towards capital balance and unsecured loans. Along with the claim petition, an application under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act was also filed seeking interim directions for payment of around Rs 15.85 crore with interest.

The arbitral tribunal partly allowed the interim application on July 6, 2024, directing the company to pay more than Rs 8.88 crore towards capital balance and about Rs 5.95 crore towards unsecured loans. Aggrieved by the order, the company filed an appeal before the commercial court at Agra under Section 37(2)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.

Before the high court, the applicant alleged that although adjournments had earlier been granted in the matter, the commercial court proceeded to hear the respondent on one date despite a request for adjournment by the applicant. The company further alleged that while fixing the next date, the presiding officer orally remarked that arrangements should be made for payment to the respondent. According to the applicant, the observation created a reasonable apprehension that the matter had been prejudged.

Opposing the plea, the respondent argued that the transfer application was a delaying tactic. It was submitted that the applicant had repeatedly sought adjournments on multiple dates on varying grounds, including personal inconvenience, lack of preparation and pendency of transfer proceedings. The respondent argued that the allegations regarding the oral remark were vague, unsupported by any material and insufficient to establish bias.

While examining the issue, the high court undertook an extensive discussion on the principles governing transfer of cases on allegations of bias. Referring to several Indian and foreign judgments, court reiterated that the test is whether a fair-minded and informed observer would apprehend a real likelihood of prejudice.

Court held that judges are not expected to remain silent spectators during hearings and that tentative observations made in the course of arguments are part of normal judicial functioning. It observed that stray remarks or courtroom exchanges cannot automatically be construed as evidence of pre-judgment unless they indicate a closed mind or unwillingness to consider the parties’ submissions.

Justice Srivastava further observed that transfer applications founded on allegations against judicial officers must be examined cautiously since unwarranted accusations can undermine confidence in the judicial system. Court noted that the record reflected repeated adjournment requests by the applicant and found merit in the respondent’s contention that the transfer plea was aimed at delaying the proceedings.

Holding that no cogent material had been placed on record to establish any real likelihood of bias, the high court dismissed the transfer application. However, it clarified that the observations made in the order would not affect adjudication of the pending arbitration appeal on merits.

Case Title: M/s Virola International vs. Smt. Sunita Sachdeva and 3 Others

Order Date: April 29, 2026

Bench: Justice Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava