There is not the slightest tangible evidence or material to support the allegation under consideration, which has, of late, become almost a patent and routine allegation that any litigant may come up with against a Judge in the subordinate Courts whom he does not wish to decide his case, or otherwise, delay proceedings, or for some other tactical reason.
In fact, the allegation is so preposterous that it is only stated to be rejected.
The other facet of the matter is that making of such unscrupulous and irresponsible allegations by a litigant is the reflection of a bigger trend in society, where the citizens from all walks of life have developed an outlook, where they think that a Judge is an easy target, and that they can malign the Judges’ reputation, alleging anything against them, particularly, the Presiding Officers in subordinate Courts.
This tendency is reflected in the complaints that galore on the administrative side of this Court and in transfer applications brought on the most irresponsible allegations, derided of any substance or material.
The impact of such transfer applications, if entertained and the Presiding Officer asked to put in his comments, will demoralize the subordinate judiciary.
The society, in general, is always conscious of keeping up the morale of the Armed Forces and the Police, but think small of the Judges, from whom they expect justice. This cannot be permitted to happen.
The litigants, who indulge in these kind of misadventures, have to be discouraged with a heavy hand.
The system of justice works on the edifice of fearlessness in the hearts of those, who man it-whether they be the Judges or the lawyers.
If allegations of this kind are entertained by a Superior Court against member of the Subordinate Judiciary, from unscrupulous litigants, it is impossible to expect delivery of justice from a demoralized judiciary, living in perpetual fear.
Every litigant, whose case is called on for hearing, expects an order in his favour. However, if the Court passes an adverse order, the litigant has no right to malign the Judge with irresponsible and frivolous allegations.
In this regard, reference has to be made to a recent decision of the Supreme Court in Anupam Ghosh and another v. Faiz Mohammed and Others, Transfer Petition (C) Nos. 2331-2334 of 2021 decided on 02.09.2022, where it has been observed by their Lordships:
One of the grounds on which the proceedings are sought to be transferred is that the petitioners believe that they are not getting a fair trial and the respondents being local bigwigs are able to influence the local Court.
We deprecate such a stand and the ground on which the proceedings are sought to be transferred. Merely because some Orders are passed on judicial side (in the present case in the execution proceedings) which may be against the petitioners, it cannot be said that the Court, which passed the order was influenced.
If the petitioners are aggrieved by any judicial order, the proper remedy would be to challenge the same before higher forum.
But merely because some Orders adverse to them are passed by the Court, it cannot be said that the Orders on judicial side are passed under influence.
Nowadays, there is a tendency to make such allegations against the judicial Officers whenever the orders are passed against a litigant and the orders are not liked by the concerned litigant.
We deprecate such a practice. If such a practice is continued, it will ultimately demoralize the judicial officer.
In fact, such an allegation can be said to be obstructing the administration of justice.
|
