Judge cannot be browbeaten by litigant to suit his convenience: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court recently warned that judges cannot be browbeaten with vague allegations of bias to suit a litigant's convenience [Noushad Flourish v XXXX & anr].

Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas made the observation while imposing a ₹15,000 fine on a man who sought to transfer his matrimonial cases from the family court in Thalassery to the family court in Vadakara on allegations that the presiding officer (family court judge) in Thalassery was biased against him.

"A judicial officer cannot be browbeaten to suit the convenience of a party to a lis. Unless the allegations of bias against a judicial officer are sturdy and impregnable, courts cannot rely on mere apprehensions to transfer cases from one court to another. In fact, meritless allegations of bias against a judicial officer ought to be sternly and ruthlessly dealt with," the High Court observed.

The Court noted that the same litigant had earlier raised nearly identical allegations of bias against the earlier presiding officer as well.

"The similarity of allegations raised against two different Presiding Officers who dealt with petitioner’s cases is a clear indication of petitioner’s calumny. The various allegations raised by the petitioner against the Presiding Officer are without any merit. Such vituperative denigration of a judicial officer by a litigant has to be dealt with sternly and cannot be tolerated under any circumstances whatsoever," Court added.

The man (petitioner) had claimed that the presiding judge of the Thalassery family court had shown favouritism towards his wife.

He alleged that the judge accepted the wife's petitions without verification, issued ex-parte orders in her favour if he missed even a single hearing, and that the judge dismissed the documents submitted by the petitioner as forged repeatedly.

The family court’s consistent rulings in his wife’s favour on matters like maintenance and custody suggest a clear bias against him, the petitioner said.

The petitioner had also filed a complaint (through his lawyer) with the High Court Registrar General challenging the judge’s impartiality.

Thereafter, he approached the Kerala High Court to transfer all his pending matrimonial cases from the Thalassery family court to Vadakara.

The High Court, however, was not impressed by the allegations. It noted that the petitioner had not provided any substantial proof of bias, relying instead on vague and generalised allegations.

The Court highlighted the need for concrete evidence in claims of judicial bias, stressing that accusations based on mere dissatisfaction with rulings would not justify case transfers. 

After concluding that the petitioner's transfer plea was aimed at tarnishing the reputation of different judicial officers, the Court dismissed the plea

“A mere allegation of bias by itself can weaken the very edifice of the judicial system and even erode the confidence of the Officer," the Court added.

It further observed that the transfer petition was being used as a tactic by the petitioner to evade payment obligations as the pending petitions involved an arrears of around ₹9 lakh rupees in maintenance dues.

"This Court also firmly believes that the transfer petition is a ploy to delay the proceedings and to browbeat the Presiding Officer from issuing orders in the various petitions pending consideration. Such conduct has to be dealt with, with iron hands and must be visited with costs," the High Court observed while imposing a fine of ₹15,000 on the petitioner.

The fine was ordered to be paid to the District Legal Services Authority, Thalassery.

Advocates Surumi Shakeel and Shaijan Joseph appeared for the petitioner, while advocates Laliza TY and Asaf Ali T represented the respondents in this matter.

[Read Order]