Delhi High Court: Judges' Right to Respond to Bias Allegations!

In a significant decision, the Delhi High Court has affirmed that judges have the right to respond to allegations of bias. This video explores the implications of the Delhi High Court's ruling and the importance of judges being able to address accusations of bias.

Politics May 29, 2024 0 125 Add to Reading List

Delhi High Court: Judges' Right to Respond to Bias Allegations!

Judges have the right to respond to allegations of bias, states Delhi High Court.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma stated that denying such an opportunity would result in a culture of unchecked and unverified accusations against any judge.

The Delhi High Court has emphasized the significance of protecting the reputation of judicial officers. It stated that judges have the right to address allegations of bias against them while handling a case. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma's bench highlighted on Tuesday that failing to provide such an opportunity would foster a culture of unchecked and unverified accusations against any judge.

"Judges, in fulfilling their responsibilities, are entrusted with upholding the principles of fairness and impartiality when adjudicating cases and rendering judgments. However, when a judge's conduct is called into question, the principle of audi alteram partem [let the other side be heard as well] must be equally observed in such instances," stated Justice Sharma. "Applying audi alteram partem in cases involving judges would guarantee that the judiciary remains accountable, while also safeguarding the rights of judges to defend their actions and rulings."

Justice Sharma emphasized that judges build their reputation through years of devoted service, highlighting the critical importance for them to safeguard their reputation.

The emphasis on the judges' right to be heard was in relation to an Enforcement Directorate (ED) plea challenging a local court's May 1 order transferring the Bhushan Steel money laundering case from Judge Jagdish Kumar. Judge Kumar allegedly remarked, "Let them take dates, where is the question of bail in ED matters."

The May 1 order was issued following a transfer application filed by one of the accused, Ajay S Mittal, who alleged that Judge Kumar had a "pre-determined" and biased mindset to reject his bail application. Mittal claimed that his wife, who was observing the proceedings virtually, purportedly overheard Judge Kumar making these remarks during a conversation with the court staff.

In the May 1 order, a district judge granted Mittal's request, acknowledging his concern about the judge's "possible bias" in favor of the probe agency, which could not be considered unfounded.

The Enforcement Directorate (ED) appealed to the high court, asserting that the district judge transferred the matter solely based on an affidavit from Mittal's wife, without seeking a report from the concerned judge. It argued that the "unsubstantiated allegations" against the judge could not be treated as unquestionable truth, as none of the attorneys present during the hearing heard the judge's remarks.

In his 41-page order, Justice Sharma noted that a judge's casual remark to a staff member, who is neither involved in the decision-making process nor has any stake in the case's outcome, cannot be interpreted as being related to a similar case.

He emphasized that the relationship between the staff and the judge should be considered confidential and should not be subject to scrutiny by litigants or lawyers.

The high court expressed disapproval of the increasing trend of litigants writing abusive or inappropriate comments in the chat box during video conferencing. It called for the formulation of appropriate guidelines to address this issue. "The growing trend of writing abusive or inappropriate comments in the chat box during video conferencing, using defamatory, contemptuous, and abusive language against judges, has also been observed by the courts recently," the high court stated, referring to the current case where bias allegations against the judge were based on an overheard conversation between the judge and the staff when the court was not in session. "These developments are concerning," the high court added.

The court revoked the transfer order, stating that the district judge neglected to provide Judge Kumar with an opportunity to address the allegations of bias before making the decision. It noted that this lapse had compromised fundamental principles of fairness and natural justice. The court instructed the district judge to reconsider the matter anew after soliciting comments from Judge Kumar.