DELHI HC FINES RS.50,000 FOR MAKING FALSE AND BASELESS ALLEGATIONS AGAINST SITTING JUDGE:

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a transfer petition filed by two litigants while imposing costs of Rs.50,000 for what it described as an attempt to malign a sitting judge of the Trial Court with baseless allegations. The petition sought the transfer of a case involving recovery of rent, mesne profits, and damages from the Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, to another competent court within the same district.

The matter came before Justice Saurabh Banerjee, who found the petition to be frivolous and motivated by unfounded claims. The Court noted that the petitioners had tried to cast aspersions on the trial judge by making fictitious, misleading, and wholly unsupported assertions. It recorded that such allegations were contrary to the records placed before the Court and had no legal or factual basis. The Court further observed that the petition was nothing more than an attempt to concoct an imaginary story to justify a transfer.

The petitioners were represented by Advocate Indira Goswami, while Advocate Shruti Kapur appeared for the respondents. The petitioners’ counsel argued that the transfer was sought because the presiding Additional District Judge had allegedly spoken in a friendly manner to an individual present in court who, according to the petitioners, was associated with the respondents. This, they contended, raised doubts about the impartiality of the judge.

The Court, however, rejected this argument outright, holding that such claims were based purely on conjecture and could not form the foundation for casting doubt on judicial impartiality. It emphasized that attempts to level false allegations against judges strike at the integrity of the judicial process and cannot be permitted.

The Court also examined the sequence of events in the underlying suit. It noted that on July 17, 2025, the matter had been referred for mediation before the Delhi Mediation Cell, and both parties had appeared before the mediator on July 21, 2025. Later, on August 28, 2025, one of the petitioners appeared again before the Additional District Judge along with their counsel when the case was listed. The Court highlighted that the petitioners themselves had already filed their written statement, statement of truth, and the affidavit of admission and denial of documents prior to July 21, 2025. Despite this, they failed to place those filings or any detailed averments before the High Court. Instead, it was left to the respondents’ counsel, who appeared on advance notice, to provide the relevant orders.

In view of these facts, the Court concluded that the petition was wholly without merit. It held that the petitioners had relied on bald and baseless assertions, reflecting nothing more than their whims and fancies. The allegations, in the Court’s opinion, were a figment of the petitioners’ imagination, unsupported by any material.

The High Court stated that it took serious objection to such petitions, especially when they are used as a tool to question the integrity of a sitting judge without evidence. Considering the gravity of the unfounded allegations and the waste of judicial time, the Court dismissed the transfer petition and imposed costs of Rs.50,000 on the petitioners.