Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from a writ petition filed by the first respondent, a company, challenging a sales tax assessment order and alleging personal mala fide against the appellant, the Chief Minister of Haryana. The writ petition was admitted on 7.2.92 and later listed before the Tax Bench. On 3.8.92, when S.S. Sodhi, J. became Acting Chief Justice, he directed the writ petition to be delisted from the Tax Bench and listed before his own Bench. This transfer became the subject of internal correspondence, including letters from G.R. Majithia, J. seeking an explanation from the Registrar. On 21.10.92, S.S. Sodhi, J. re-transferred the writ petition back to the Tax Bench. Later, after S.D. Agarwala was appointed Chief Justice, S.S. Sodhi, J. became the seniormost puisne Judge, and the writ petition was again listed before a Bench presided over by him. During final hearing on 4.10.93, the appellant moved an application for transfer of the case, alleging bias. The High Court dismissed the application on 6.10.93, and the appellant filed a civil appeal in the Supreme Court. The core legal issues were whether the transfer of a single case by the Acting Chief Justice to his own Bench created a reasonable apprehension of bias, whether non-pecuniary bias disqualified the judge, whether a litigant could seek information about internal judicial communications, and whether the conduct of Judge 'M' in writing letters violated judicial propriety. The appellant contended that the transfer of a single case was sufficient to establish the interestedness of Judge 'S' and relied on an affidavit detailing events and conversations among judges. The respondent argued that it was normal practice for a case fixed for final hearing before a particular Bench to come before the same Bench, and therefore delisting and listing before the same judge was not a sign of bias. The Supreme Court held that mere transfer of a case from one Bench to another is not a justified ground for allegation of bias. There was nothing to indicate that the Acting Chief Justice evinced an interest in hearing the matter or was biased. In cases of non-pecuniary bias, regard must be had to the extent and nature of the interest; a judge is disqualified only if he has a direct or indirect interest in the outcome. The Court also deprecated the appellant's attempt to seek information about what transpired within the judicial fortress, stating that judges should not be dragged into such matters. Finally, the Court criticized the conduct of Judge 'M', observing that his enquiries and letters were not consistent with the restraint expected of high offices. The appeal was dismissed, and the order of the High Court refusing transfer was upheld.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Transfer Petition - Bias - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Section 25 - Transfer of a single case from one Bench to another by the Acting Chief Justice did not establish bias or interest - The writ petition was delisted from the Tax Bench and listed before the Bench presided over by the Acting Chief Justice, but there was nothing to indicate that the Acting Chief Justice evinced an interest in hearing the matter or was biased - Held that mere transfer of a case from one Bench to another is not a justified ground for allegation of bias (Para 1). B) Administrative Law - Natural Justice - Bias - Non-pecuniary bias - Common Law Principles of Natural Justice - In cases of non-pecuniary bias, regard must be had to the extent and nature of the interest; no one should be a judge in his own cause (sua causa) whether or not he is named as a party - The decision maker should have no interest by way of gain or detriment in the outcome of a proceeding; interest may be direct, indirect, personal, or arise from relationship with the subject matter - Held that a judge is disqualified only when such interest is substantial enough to create a real likelihood of bias (Para 2). C) Practice and Procedure - Judicial Conduct - Affidavit relating events and conversations among judges - Common Law Principles of Judicial Conduct - A litigant cannot seek information about what transpired between the judges of the court regarding his case - The appellant filed an affidavit stating events and communications between judges without disclosing the source of information - Held that it is deprecating to seek information about internal judicial deliberations and judges should not be dragged into such matters (Para 3). D) Judicial Propriety - Conduct of a Judge - Enquiries and letters by a judge - Common Law Principles of Judicial Conduct - The conduct of Judge 'M' in writing letters to the Registrar seeking explanation about delisting was not consistent with the restraint expected of high offices - Judges must remain calm in the midst of contending forces and avoid transgressing the proprieties of their office - Held that the enquiries and letters by Judge 'M' incurred criticism as they were inconsistent with judicial restraint (Para 4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether transfer of a single case by an Acting Chief Justice from one Bench to his own Bench gives rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias warranting transfer under Section 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; whether the conduct of a judge in writing letters to the Registrar seeking explanation about the transfer violated judicial propriety; whether a litigant can seek information about internal judicial communications.
Final Decision
The appeal was dismissed. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's order refusing transfer, holding that mere transfer of a case from one Bench to another is not a justified ground for allegation of bias. The conduct of Judge 'M' in writing letters was criticized as inconsistent with judicial restraint.
Law Points
- Mere transfer of a case from one Bench to another is not a justified ground for allegation of bias
- in cases of non-pecuniary bias regard must be had to the extent and nature of interest
- a judge is disqualified only if he has a direct or indirect interest in the outcome
- a litigant cannot seek information about what transpired between judges regarding his case
- enquiries and letters by a judge seeking explanation about listing are not consistent with the restraint expected of high offices
