In a stern ruling that underscores the judiciary’s intolerance towards frivolous litigation and unfounded allegations against judges, the Delhi High Court recently imposed a cost of ₹50,000 on two litigants. The penalty was levied after the Court found that the petitioners had concocted an “imaginary story” of judicial bias in their plea seeking transfer of a rent recovery case.
The case titled Neeti Sharma & Anr. v. Kailash Chand Gupta & Ors. was heard by Justice Saurabh Banerjee, who dismissed the transfer petition while strongly criticizing the petitioners for attempting to malign the image of a sitting judge without any evidence.
Background of the Case
The petitioners had filed a suit before the Tis Hazari District Court in connection with a recovery of rent dispute. Dissatisfied with the progress of the matter, they sought the transfer of the case to a different judge. The reason advanced was that the Additional District Judge (ADJ) hearing the case allegedly addressed the respondents in a “friendly manner” in court.
To justify the transfer, the petitioners argued that such behavior amounted to bias and compromised their ability to secure a fair trial. However, they failed to substantiate their allegations with evidence, affidavits, or supporting records.
High Court’s Strong Observations
Justice Saurabh Banerjee came down heavily on the petitioners for filing a baseless transfer plea. In his order, the Court noted:
- The petition was based on “flimsy, misleading, and mythical assertions” with no proof.
- Allegations of bias against a sitting trial judge were contrary to records and had no legal backing.
- The petition amounted to nothing more than an “imaginary story” cooked up by the litigants.
Quoting directly, the Court observed:
“The petitioners by way of the present petition are trying to cast unwarranted, fictitious and fallacious aspersions by making flimsy, misleading and mythical assertions on a sitting Judge of the learned Trial Court, which are not only contrary to the records before this Court but also without any backing thereto. This Court, in any event, takes a serious objection to the filing of the present petition, and that too by making and cooking up an imaginary story.”
Petition Based on ‘Whims and Fancies’
Justice Banerjee further emphasized that the plea was not grounded in law or fact but was merely the product of the petitioners’ imagination:
- The transfer plea was “a figment of infertile imagination”.
- The allegations had no basis, proof, or affidavit.
- The conduct of the petitioners suggested that they were acting on mere whims and fancies.
The Court also pointed out that the petitioners had continued to appear before the same judge even after the alleged incident of bias. This further undermined their credibility and showed inconsistency in their conduct.
Lack of Supporting Evidence
The Court noted several critical shortcomings in the petition:
- No Affidavit of Counsel: The petitioners did not file an affidavit from their counsel who had appeared before the ADJ when the alleged bias occurred.
- Prior Proceedings Ignored: The petitioners had previously filed a similar transfer application before the Principal District and Sessions Judge (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, but later withdrew it. They failed to disclose this fact or provide a copy of the earlier petition.
- Contradictory Conduct: Despite alleging bias, the petitioners themselves continued with procedural steps before the same judge, including filing their written statement and statement of truth before August 28, 2025.
Imposition of Costs
Given the lack of merit and the serious nature of unfounded allegations against a judicial officer, the Court dismissed the petition and imposed ₹50,000 as costs. The Court directed that the amount be paid to the Delhi High Court Bar Association Lawyers Social Security and Welfare Fund within two weeks.
This move not only penalizes the petitioners for their misconduct but also serves as a deterrent against misuse of judicial time and resources.
Legal Principles Highlighted
This ruling reaffirms several important legal principles:
1. Baseless Allegations Against Judges Not Tolerated
Courts have consistently held that allegations of judicial bias must be supported by clear and convincing evidence. Casting aspersions on judges without proof not only undermines the integrity of the judicial system but also attracts strict consequences.
2. Transfer of Cases Requires Substantiated Grounds
A litigant cannot seek transfer of a case simply because they perceive bias. The law requires substantive evidence of prejudice or reasonable apprehension of bias. Mere subjective suspicion or imagination does not qualify.
3. Costs as Deterrence Against Frivolous Litigation
The imposition of monetary costs ensures that litigants think twice before filing frivolous or malicious petitions. Courts use this tool to safeguard judicial time and to discourage irresponsible conduct.
4. Duty of Candour in Pleadings
Litigants are required to be candid and transparent when approaching courts. Concealing prior proceedings or failing to file material documents can amount to suppression of facts, which courts view seriously.
Importance of the Judgment
This decision carries significance for multiple reasons:
- Protects Judicial Dignity: Judges must be shielded from baseless allegations that can tarnish their reputation and erode public trust in the judiciary.
- Encourages Responsible Litigation: Litigants are reminded that they cannot misuse legal procedures to delay proceedings or pressure judges.
- Strengthens Procedural Discipline: By penalizing litigants for suppression of facts and lack of evidence, the Court emphasizes the importance of honest pleadings.
- Sets Precedent for Future Cases: Other litigants considering frivolous transfer petitions will now face the risk of adverse costs.
Broader Implications
This ruling has implications not just for the parties involved but also for the legal system at large:
- For Litigants: Filing unsubstantiated claims of bias is risky and can backfire, resulting in financial penalties and loss of credibility.
- For Lawyers: Advocates must exercise caution before advancing allegations of bias. Without solid evidence, such claims can damage both the client’s and the lawyer’s reputation.
- For the Judiciary: The judgment sends a clear message that the judiciary will not tolerate attempts to undermine its integrity through baseless stories.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court’s decision in Neeti Sharma & Anr. v. Kailash Chand Gupta & Ors. is a landmark reminder that the credibility of the judiciary is sacrosanct and cannot be compromised by unfounded allegations. By imposing costs of ₹50,000, the Court has not only penalized the litigants for their misconduct but has also set a precedent to deter similar frivolous petitions in the future.
In the broader scheme, this case highlights the need for responsible litigation and the judiciary’s firm stand in protecting the integrity of its officers. Allegations of bias must be substantiated with evidence; otherwise, they amount to nothing more than an “imaginary story” — a costly one for those who dare to attempt it.
Also Read
Wife of Sonam Wangchuk Moves Supreme Court Against His Detention Under National Security Act (NSA)
Bombay High Court Quashes ₹236 Crore Water Bill Against United Spirits’ Liquor Unit
