Court Emphasizes Distinction Between Judicial Error and Judicial Bias, Urges Utilization of Statutory Remedies Over Transfer Requests
In a significant ruling delivered on September 10, 2026, the Delhi High Court, presided over by Mr. Prateek Jalan, J., dismissed a transfer petition filed by Pradeep Kaur seeking to move her rape case from the current Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) to another court on grounds of alleged judicial bias. The case emanates from FIR No. 123/2021 registered at Police Station Rajinder Nagar, Delhi, under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code.
The petitioner, representing herself, contended that the framing of charges by the predecessor ASJ was erroneous and highlighted several procedural grievances, including the non-hearing of her application under Section 216 CrPC for additional charges and an application under Section 319 CrPC for bringing additional accused on record. She further alleged that the testimony recorded was incomplete and that directions issued by the court were not followed, which collectively, according to her, indicated bias on the part of the judicial officer.
However, the Court clarified the legal framework governing transfer petitions on grounds of bias. It underscored that to justify a transfer, there must be a reasonable, real, and objective apprehension of bias based on cogent material, not just dissatisfaction with judicial orders or procedural conduct. Citing the Supreme Court decision in Gurcharan Das Chadha v. State of Rajasthan (1965) and recent rulings from the Delhi High Court and Punjab and Haryana High Court, the Court emphasized that judicial error or unfavorable orders do not equate to bias warranting transfer.
The Court noted that the adverse orders cited by the petitioner were passed by different judges, which made the allegations of bias implausible. It observed that the petitioner had not availed the statutory remedies available under the law to challenge these orders, and that the extraordinary power of transfer cannot be used as a substitute for such remedies.
Further, the Court warned against the abuse of the process and forum shopping through frivolous transfer petitions, emphasizing the need for a stringent threshold before entertaining such requests. The absence of any evidence of extraneous influence, personal interest, or predisposition on the part of the presiding officer led to the dismissal of the petition. The Court, however, made it clear that this dismissal would not prevent the petitioner from pursuing substantive reliefs through appropriate legal channels.
This judgment serves as a reaffirmation of the principles ensuring judicial impartiality while simultaneously preserving the procedural sanctity by directing litigants to exhaust statutory remedies before seeking transfer on allegations of bias.
Bottom Line:
Transfer of criminal case on ground of bias - Mere adverse orders, alleged procedural irregularities, or dissatisfaction with conduct of trial do not by themselves justify transfer - Applicant must show reasonable apprehension of bias based on cogent material - Judicial error is distinct from judicial bias - Statutory remedies against unfavourable orders cannot be substituted by transfer jurisdiction.
Statutory provision(s):
Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 376; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Sections 216, 319, 408
Pradeep Kaur v. State NCT of Delhi, (Delhi) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2990493
