The Punjab & Haryana High Court has come down heavily on a litigant who sought transfer of a criminal trial by casting allegations against the Judge, holding that such pleas amount to a “plain subterfuge” and an attempt at forum hunting.

However, the bench refrained from imposing exemplary costs upon the petitioner keeping in view that the petitioner being a man aged 83 years with no antecedents regarding raising such scandalous issues.

Warning of the larger consequences, the Bench observed that if such grounds were accepted for transfer, it would “well neigh yield anarchy in the adjudicatory process”. The Court cautioned that unscrupulous litigants would otherwise indulge in “court/forum hunting,” endlessly seeking a forum they feel comfortable with a tendency that must be curbed “with an iron hand”.

A bench of Justice Sumeet Goel categorically observed, “…It must be underscored that a Presiding Officer/trial Judge has to perform his duty and not to succumb to the pressure put by the litigant(s) by making callous allegations. He is not expected to show unnecessary sensitivity to such allegations and recuse himself from the case. Judicial Officers often function and discharge their duties in environment which is overloaded with various stakeholders, literally and figuratively, breathing down their necks. They may, at times, err, owing to tremendous strain, which can be remedied in multiple ways. However, to cast aspersions on or besmirch their judicial work due to a development/order, unacceptable or unpalatable to a litigant, therefore pleading for transfer of trial etc. by such litigant is plainly subterfuge. If this could be the foundation in transfer of a case, it will well neigh yield anarchy in the adjudicatory process. The unscrupulous litigants will indulge themselves in Court/forum hunting which tendency needs to be curbed with an iron hand. If such latitude is to be allowed to litigants, that they need not face the trial in a Court they do not feel comfortable in, it would lead to an infinite regress to find a conducive one”.

The Court noted that judicial officers work under immense strain, often with multiple stakeholders “breathing down their necks”, and while errors may occur, the legal system provides remedies through appellate and supervisory mechanisms.

Advocate Pratham Sethi appeared for the petitioner, Advocate Rohit Kaushik appeared for the complainant, Senior Advocate Dr. Anmol Rattan Sidhu, Mahima Yashpal Singla, Senior DAG Haryana appeared for the respondent.

In the present matter, a plea sought transfer of proceedings pending before a trial court, where the petitioner alleged bias and unfairness on the part of the Presiding Judge based on certain orders passed during the course of the trial.

The High Court noted that the grievances stemmed essentially from orders that were “unacceptable or unpalatable” to the litigant, rather than from any real or substantiated apprehension of injustice.

Rejecting the plea, the Court said that a trial Judge is duty-bound to decide cases in accordance with law and cannot be expected to succumb to pressure created by litigants through reckless or callous allegations.

Consequentially, the bench imposed cost, however, directed that from the amount ₹25,000 shall be deposited by him with the Haryana State Legal Services Authority, Panchkula within two weeks and remaining ₹25,000 shall be deposited before the Chief Judicial Magistrate CJM), Panchkula to be remitted to the counsel appearing for the complainant before the trial Court within two weeks.

Cause Title: Dinesh Chand Bansal v. State of Haryana and another [Neutral Citation: 2026:PHHC:013845]

Appearances:

Petitioner: Pratham Sethi, Advocate.

Respondent: Dr. Anmol Rattan Sidhu, Senior Advocate, Mahima Yashpal Singla, Senior DAG Haryana, For the Complainant: Rohit Kaushik, Advocates.

Click to read/download the Order


Justice Sumeet GoelPunjab & Haryana High Court

Agatha Shukla