Dissatisfaction with a Judicial Order Cannot Be Construed as Bias: Allahabad High Court Refuses Transfer of Murder Trial

“Judicial Orders Are Not Grounds for Transfer – Forum Shopping Must Be Crushed with a Heavy Hand” - In a significant judgment Allahabad High Court rejected a transfer application filed under Section 408 CrPC by the accused in a sensational murder and kidnapping case, emphatically reiterating that mere dissatisfaction with a judicial order does not create a legitimate ground for seeking transfer of a criminal trial. The Court cautioned against attempts at “forum shopping”, observing that such tactics undermine the administration of justice and cannot be tolerated in any civilised system of law.

The case titled Vikas Gupta @ Monu Gupta v. State of U.P. & Another, involved a pending Sessions Trial No. 376 of 2007 under Sections 364A, 302, and 201 IPC before the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 9, Lucknow, in which the accused alleged bias after the court rejected an application under Section 311 CrPC seeking recall of a witness. The accused contended that the judge’s refusal revealed a predisposition and sought transfer to another competent court.

“A Judicial Order, Even If Unfavourable, Is No Proof of Bias”: High Court Upholds Sanctity of Judicial Process

Rejecting the plea in unequivocal terms, Justice Saurabh Lavania held:

“A judicial order passed after hearing both sides, even if unfavourable to a party, cannot become the basis of a transfer. Dissatisfaction with an order does not mean bias. The apprehension must not only be real; it must also appear to the Court to be reasonable.”

The Court was clear that the mere rejection of a Section 311 CrPC application, which the trial court found unnecessary at the stage of Section 313 CrPC proceedings, cannot be stretched to infer bias or unfairness. Observing that the accused has also challenged that judicial order through appropriate legal remedies, the Court emphasized that "alleging bias on the basis of a lawful judicial action amounts to undermining the integrity of the judicial process."

“Forum Shopping Is Judicial Intimidation in Disguise”: Courts Must Not Yield to Browbeating by Litigants

The Court drew extensively from Supreme Court jurisprudence to underscore that judicial discipline and independence must be preserved from frivolous allegations of bias. Referring to the apex court’s ruling in Ajay Kumar Pandey v. Unknown, (1998) 7 SCC 248, the High Court reiterated:

“No affront to the majesty of law can be permitted. The fountain of justice cannot be allowed to be polluted by disgruntled litigants.”

It further stated:

“Judges shall not be able to perform their duties freely and fairly if such activities were permitted. The administration of justice would become a casualty. Rule of law would receive a setback.”

Reinforcing these principles, the Court observed that seeking transfer as a tactical device to delay trial or shop for a favourable forum is a clear abuse of process, and such attempts must be "crushed with a heavy hand."

“Reasonable Apprehension Must Be Based on Concrete Facts, Not Conjecture”: High Court Finds Allegation Unsubstantiated

Reiterating the principles laid down in Gurcharan Das Chadha v. State of Rajasthan, (1966) 2 SCR 686, the Court clarified that:

“A case is transferred only if there exists a reasonable apprehension of injustice. The standard is not whether the party feels aggrieved, but whether the apprehension is real and reasonable in the eyes of the court.”

The Court emphasized that a mere expression of dissatisfaction, vague fears, or speculative suspicions cannot form the basis for invoking the extraordinary power of transfer under Section 408 CrPC. It stressed that the burden lies heavily on the applicant to prove bias through cogent material—which was entirely missing in this case.

“Judges Are Not Sphinxes — Expression of Opinion Does Not Mean Prejudice”

The Court also addressed a broader concern—frequent attempts to portray judicial expression during hearings as indicators of bias. Citing precedents such as Sangeetha S. Chugh v. Ram Narayan V. and G. Lakshmi Ammal v. Elumalai Chettiar, the Court observed:

“A Judge is not expected to remain sphinx-like during proceedings. Expressions made in the course of hearing cannot be misconstrued as bias or prejudgment. To claim otherwise is to misrepresent the role of the judiciary.”

“Transfer Is Not A Routine Remedy — It Is An Exceptional Relief”

Relying on the Supreme Court’s caution in multiple decisions, including Afzal Ali Sha v. State of West Bengal, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 282, and Amarinder Singh v. Parkash Singh Badal, (2009) 6 SCC 260, the High Court held:

“Transfer applications are to be granted sparingly, only when justice is in grave peril. It is not a right that can be invoked casually.”

The judgment restated that the right to a fair trial is foundational under Article 21 of the Constitution, but it must not be misused to obstruct or derail criminal trials on flimsy and unsubstantiated allegations.

“Litigants Cannot Terrorise the Judiciary by Casting Aspersions to Get Cases Moved”

Justice Lavania referred to Chetak Construction Ltd. v. Om Prakash, (1998) 4 SCC 577 and observed:

“Lawyers and litigants cannot be allowed to terrorize or intimidate judges with a view to secure orders they want. The court cannot approve of such conduct. Every attempt at forum shopping must be strongly deprecated.”

High Court Rejects Transfer, Reiterates Confidence in Trial Court’s Independence

Ultimately, the Allahabad High Court found no merit in the allegations levelled against the trial court, noting that the order under challenge was passed in due course of law, and that judicial conduct showed no indication of prejudice.

“A transfer petition founded only on an adverse order is neither sustainable in law nor acceptable in principle. The prayer for transfer stands rejected.”

A Judicial Firewall Against Forum Shopping

This decision is a firm reaffirmation of judicial integrity and institutional confidence in the lower courts. It serves as a cautionary tale for litigants attempting to discredit courts or delay proceedings under the garb of transfer petitions. While the right to a fair trial remains sacrosanct, the ruling draws a clear line between genuine apprehension and tactical allegations, reminding litigants that courts are not arenas for convenience-based litigation strategies.

Date of Decision: 16 October 2025