Bias in a Judge

Kinds of such bias enumerated.

Conflict of interest and bias are two distinct grounds on which a party may seek the recusal of a Judge from hearing a case

Whilst conflict of interest is related to the Judge's interest in the subject matter of a particular case, bias is concerned with his state of mind and his feelings towards the parties appearing before him.

Judge of a Superior Court is a keeper of his own conscience and it is for him to decide whether to hear or not to hear a matter before him.

Application for transfer does not lie at all against a Judge of the High Court.

Marked distinction existed in the approach on the question of bias between a case of a Judge of a Subordinate Court and a case pertaining to a Judge of a Superior Court inasmuch as in the former case the Superior Courts does grant transfer applications on the ground of Judge having personal, pecuniary or proprietary interest in the subject matter whereas in the latter case the Superior Court does not grant transfer application on the above ground for want of power.

There is no principle of transfer of cases from one Bench to another and the matter is left to the discretion of the Judge.

Issue of bias in a judge was a very serious matter and in very least cogent and specific particulars thereof must be pleaded by an applicant and same could be bolstered with plausible collaboration

High Court declined to interfere in the matter as unmerited transfer of a case from one court to another would tantamount to expression of no confidence in the Judge

Application was dismissed in circumstances.

Perception of bias should be reasonable and objective.

Scope.

Assertion of bias against a Judge could take two forms recognized by law viz. 'actual' bias and 'reasonable perception' of bias even though there may be no actual bias

Actual bias was alleged on the basis of one or more specific incidents showing partiality or animosity amounting to bias

To demonstrate such bias, a factual averment had to be made in the pleadings of the party alleging it

Question as to whether the factual allegation was true or not, would not arise if the relevant fact had not been pleaded

Perception of bias, without there being actual bias ("reasonable perception of bias") was also recognized by law but again it had to be founded on a more solid footing than allegations which were imaginary or which were based on a subjective opinion divorced from objective reality.

Interim challan was submitted against accused before the Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court, mentioning commission of offence under S.201, P.P.C.

Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court while deciding bail application filed by accused observed that material on record actually disclosed an offence of harbouring the suspect under S.21-J of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, and interim challan was accordingly amended

Plea of accused that case should be transferred to some other judge, as the present Judge had a bias against him because of the opinion expressed by him at bail stage with regard to interim challan; that because accused had in the past (some 13 years ago) allegedly escaped from the court of the Judge in question, and that because a co-accused in the present case was granted bail by the Judge by observing that co-accused was entitled to bail as accused, who had a more serious role under S.21-J of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 was already granted bail

Validity

Judicial observations made by a Judge at bail stage with respect to commission of alleged offence in interim challan were a lawful act, not suffering from any illegality or excess of jurisdiction

Allegations of bias made by accused in the present case thus had no nexus with bias

Alertness demonstrated by the Judge in the present case at pre-trial stage in order to focus the controversy on the relevant facts and allegation was not an indication of pre-disposition or bias

Nothing on record suggested that incident of accused's escape from court some 13 years ago played any role in the bail order

Reference made by Judge to role of accused while granting bail to co-accused was meant for comparative purposes to grant bail and not a reflection of any pre-disposition towards the accused

Application for transfer of case to another court was dismissed in circumstances.

Such observations were a lawful act, not suffering from any illegality or excess of jurisdiction.

Kinds of such bias enumerated.

Mere institution of a suit on behalf of Banking Company against some borrower/defendant (petitioner in the present case) during his legal practice by a Judge would not be enough reason to preclude the Judge from hearing a matter that too after a period of more than one and half decade, unless there was an eminent act to reasonably assume the grudge, hostility or bias

If, however, some apprehensions of such kind occurred in the mind of the litigant, the same could have been brought to the notice of the Judge, who, then, in all fairness should have stayed off his hands

Where no such attempt had been made, such plea of bias appeared to be an afterthought, and had to be repelled.

Principles.