The Single Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Aditi Bakht vs Abhishek Ahuja consisting of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma observed that judges should not act in a manner that leads to an apprehension of bias in the minds of litigants and lawyers.
Facts
CM (M) 47/2022 was filed challenging the impugned order which restrained the petitioner from removing her minor child (Anaaya Ahuja) from Delhi. A further prayer was made that the same order also be quashed insofar as the restraining. The petitioner also prayed for transfer of the proceedings in Guardianship Petition titled as “Abhishek Ahuja v. Aditi Bakht” and all pending applications therein pending before learned Judge Sh. Sanjeev Kumar Singh to any other court. A prayer was also made for the release of Canadian passports held by the petitioner and her minor daughter. While this petition was pending, the learned Judge decided the Guardianship Petition and granted certain rights/access to the respondent father with the minor child.
Procedural History
Aggrieved, the petitioner mother filed CM(M) No.211/2022 challenging the impugned order predominantly on the ground that the impugned order focused solely on the rights of the father and his family ignoring the comforts of the minor child.
Contentions Made
Petitioner: The minor child is heavily dependent on her mother and has never been separated from her. Separating the minor child from the mother for overnight visitation or vacation is sudden, drastic and would have a negative impact on the psyche and comfort of the minor child. The Family Court had restrained the petitioner from removing the minor child from Delhi till the next date of hearing and this was not extended beyond 28.10.2021 and therefore stood lapsed. The learned Judge Family court would not have restored it without passing a fresh order imposing any travel restriction on the petitioner. The petitioner narrated several incidents regarding the apprehension of bias which was not narrated in detail.
Respondent: The order was passed after considering the entire facts and circumstances after due application of judicial mind. So, there was no cause of interference in the same in absence of any perversity/illegality in the same.
Observations of the Court
The Bench noted that the grievances of the petitioner mother is that the learned Judge, Family court shared his personal mobile number with the parties during the proceedings and the respondent father had met the judge unilaterally in his chamber. This created an apprehension of bias in the petitioner’s mind and the same acts were also considered by the Bench as un-advisable.
The Bench relied on Kinri Dhir vs. Veer Singh regarding the question of bias wherein it was held that the Judge representing the face of the court system must thus appear to be just, even handed, independent and neutral.
The Bench went on to observe that mere adverse orders are not sufficient to invoke the power of transfer:
“The allegation of bias needs to be evaluated on the premises of reasonable apprehension of bias. It is a settled proposition that “mere apprehension of bias” and not “actual bias” may be sufficient to exercise the power of transfer. This court would neither make any comment on the merits of the case nor has doubt over the integrity, neutrality and Judicial Independence of the learned Judge. However, unfortunately the conduct of the judge has unnecessarily given a cause of reasonable apprehension of bias. The judges must remind themselves time and again that every conduct is observed and noted by the litigants and therefore, knowingly or unknowingly they may not act in any manner which gives rise to even slightest of doubt in the minds of the litigants and lawyers.”
Judgment
The Bench considered the orders as liable to be set aside in the interest of justice and for the purpose of restoring faith of both the parties in the system of administration of justice. Thus, both the petitions were disposed of with certain directions.
Case: Aditi Bakht vs Abhishek Ahuja
Citation: CM(M) 47/2022 & CM(M) 211/2022
Bench: Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma
Decided on: 3rd June 2022
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
