Transfer Plea Cannot Be a Tool to Browbeat Judges: Punjab & Haryana High Court Slaps ₹50,000 Cost on Octogenarian Accused Alleging Bias Without Proof

“Fair Trial Is Not A Matter of Forum Shopping, But of Cogent Grounds”, In a sharp rebuke to misuse of the transfer jurisdiction in criminal proceedings, the Punjab and Haryana High Court, in a reportable judgment delivered by Justice Sumeet Goel, dismissed a transfer petition filed by Dinesh Chand Bansal, an 89-year-old accused in a criminal defamation case under Section 500 of the IPC, seeking transfer of the complaint from a Panchkula Magistrate’s Court on grounds of bias, ill-health, and inconvenience.

Holding that the allegations lacked “cogent material” and were nothing more than conjectures and aspersions aimed at delaying the trial, the Court imposed costs of ₹50,000 on the petitioner—half payable to the Haryana State Legal Services Authority and the other half to the complainant’s counsel.

“The power of transfer is not an administrative routine but a discretionary judicial function that remains dormant unless facts demonstrably warrant such intervention,” the Court observed, firmly rejecting any attempt to convert transfer jurisdiction into a “tool for forum shopping”.

“Judicial Error Is Not Judicial Bias”: High Court Rejects Allegations of Collusion Without Evidence

The petitioner, who is facing trial in a private complaint filed in 2019 by a senior figure in Rotary International, had sought transfer of the proceedings under Section 448 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 408 CrPC), alleging bias, physical strain due to travel from Dehradun, and even a scandalous claim of bribery involving the Magistrate and opposing counsel.

Justice Goel, however, found these claims to be wholly unsubstantiated, cautioning that:

“Bald allegations or imaginary apprehensions do not meet the evidentiary threshold necessary for transfer… Judicial error is not synonymous with judicial partiality.”

Referring to the landmark principle that “justice must not only be done, but must also be seen to be done”, the Court nonetheless emphasized that the perception of bias must be reasonable, not manufactured:

“Mere dissatisfaction with the progression of trial, or discomfort with adverse orders, cannot be allowed to masquerade as a case for bias.”

“Frivolous Transfer Petitions Threaten Judicial Independence”: Court Deplores Emerging Trend of Forum Shopping

While acknowledging the constitutional right to a fair trial under Article 21, the Court expressed serious concern over a growing trend of litigants filing transfer petitions based on vague and scandalous accusations. The Court observed:

“It is a disconcerting trend where litigants cast scurrilous aspersions upon learned counsel representing the rival side—often alleging untoward influence on the Court—without a shred of corroborative material.”

Adding a strong word of caution, Justice Goel remarked:

“If such latitude is allowed, it would yield anarchy in the adjudicatory process. Courts cannot allow themselves to be held hostage to the whims of disgruntled litigants.”

The Court described such tactics as “vexatious and virulent”, emphasizing that the role of advocates in an adversarial justice system is foundational to the process of fair adjudication:

“Unsubstantiated attacks on the conduct of opposing counsel, particularly involving the judiciary, is an assault on the majesty of law itself.”

Health and Age Alone Are Not Grounds for Transfer, Rules Court

Despite the petitioner’s advanced age (89) and medical ailments, the Court held that no exceptional circumstance was made out that would justify transfer. The trial has been pending since 2019, but delays were not solely attributable to the complainant or the court. The Court further held:

“Even in old age, where reasonable accommodations may be warranted, the proper forum lies elsewhere—not in transfer proceedings grounded in unfounded allegations.”

The Court reminded that inconvenience or logistical challenges are not by themselves grounds for transfer unless they impede the right to fair trial in a material way.

Costs Imposed for “Tactical Plea Aimed at Intimidation”; Directions Issued for Recovery

While refraining from imposing exemplary costs due to the petitioner’s age and lack of prior misconduct, the Court nevertheless imposed ₹50,000 in costs for abuse of process.

“A litigant who misuses the process of law or takes liberties with the truth should be left in no doubt about the consequences to follow,” Justice Goel held.

Failure to deposit costs within two weeks would authorize the Deputy Commissioner, Panchkula to recover the amount as arrears of land revenue, and compliance reports have been directed from the CJM and the Deputy Commissioner.

The trial court has also been directed to proceed expeditiously and uninfluenced by any observations made in the transfer judgment.

A Strong Reaffirmation of Judicial Integrity and Discipline in Transfer Jurisdiction

This judgment stands out as a clear reaffirmation of the constitutional balance between fair trial rights and judicial independence. By denouncing the misuse of transfer powers, the Court has drawn a firm line against forum shopping, scandalous pleadings, and litigation strategy rooted in intimidation.

The decision will likely guide subordinate courts in resisting pressure and reinforce public confidence in the impartial administration of criminal justice.

Date of Decision: January 30, 2026