Casting Aspersions on Judicial Officers for Unfavourable Orders Deprecated; Not Grounds for Case Transfer: Rajasthan High Court - 2024-02-05

Rajasthan High Court Dismisses Plea to Transfer Case, Condemns Allegations Against Presiding Officer

Jodhpur, Rajasthan – The High Court of Rajasthan (Jodhpur Bench), in a significant order dated February 5, 2024, dismissed a writ petition filed by Babulal against Shri Mahaveer Jain Swetamber Pedhi (Trust), upholding a trial court's order regarding the service of summons and strongly deprecating the practice of casting aspersions on judicial officers. Dr. Justice Nupur Bhati imposed a cost of Rs. 10,000 on the petitioner for leveling unsubstantiated allegations against the Presiding Officer of the District Court, Jalore.

Background of the Dispute

The petitioner, Babulal , had initiated a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction concerning the management and structure of temples associated with Shri Mahaveer Jain Swetamber Pedhi (Trust). The suit also sought the removal of a "Self Style Guru Jairatan Sureshwar Ji " from the trust's management, an audit of accounts, and the conduct of elections for the trust named Shri Vardhamaan Rajinder Jain Bhadavji Trust , formed in 2018.

The immediate grievance leading to the writ petition was an order dated November 4, 2023, by the District Judge, Jalore, which held that the service of summons on several respondents (Nos. 2 to 11 and 13 to 27) was incomplete.

Petitioner's Arguments and Allegations

The petitioner contended before the High Court that the service of summons was complete as per Order V Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. It was argued that summons served upon Shri Jairatan Sureshwarji and the Manager in their personal capacities should be deemed sufficient service on the other respondents.

More contentiously, the petitioner alleged connivance between the Presiding Officer of the Jalore District Court and Mr. Rajender Kachhawa , counsel for some of the respondents. To support this, the petitioner cited: 1. A complaint allegedly filed by the Jalore Bar Association against the Presiding Officer with the Chief Justice of the Rajasthan High Court. 2. An unrelated bail order granted by the same Presiding Officer in an NDPS case (Criminal Miscellaneous (Bail) Case 98/2023) where Mr. Kachhawa was the defense counsel, despite the contraband being allegedly above commercial quantity.

The petitioner argued that due to this alleged connivance, the Presiding Officer was deliberately not treating the service as complete, thereby causing delays and potential irreparable loss to the temple's heritage and accounts. An alternative prayer was made to transfer the case from the District Judge, Jalore, to another court.

Trial Court's Reasoning on Service of Summons

The High Court noted that the District Judge, in the impugned order of November 4, 2023, had observed that respondents No. 2 to 11 and 13 to 27 were impleaded in their personal capacities, not through the Trust or an authorized agent. The trial court found that when attempts were made to serve these individuals, Shri Jairatan Sureshwarji and the Manager (who were present at the given address) stated the respondents resided elsewhere (Peshawar) and refused to accept the notices or allow them to be affixed.

The trial court concluded that since these respondents were sued personally and not through an agent empowered to accept service under Order V Rule 9 CPC, the service could not be deemed complete.

High Court's Stance on Judicial Integrity and Service

Dr. Justice Nupur Bhati found no infirmity in the trial court's order regarding the service of summons, stating, "the learned Trial Court has rightly observed that as the respondents No.2 to 11 & 12 to 27 have been impleaded in their personal capacity, it cannot be declared that the service is complete and thus no indulgence is required in the order dated 04.11.2023 passed by learned Trial Court."

The High Court then turned its attention to the serious allegations made against the Presiding Officer. It observed:

"Casting aspersions on the Judicial Officers is a practice which is required to be severely depreciated particularly when the judicial orders are challenged. Critical analysis of a judgment in right perspective has to be appreciated but casting allegations upon a Judge if allowed would hit at the root of the system of justice."

The Court highlighted that if a litigant is aggrieved by a judicial order, the proper recourse is to challenge it before a higher court, not to make allegations of bias or connivance.

Legal Principles and Precedents Reaffirmed

The judgment extensively quoted several Supreme Court and High Court rulings:

Krishna Prasad Verma versus State of Bihar (AIR 2019 SC 4852): The Apex Court held that if a judicial officer passes a wrong order without extraneous influences, the appropriate action is administrative (noting on service record), not disciplinary proceedings.

Prof. Abdul Gani Bhat v. Mr. Malik Shabir Ahmed ( Jammu and Kashmir HC, 2012): Emphasized that casting defamatory aspersions on judges undermines public confidence in the judiciary.

Anupam Ghosh & Anr. v. Faiz Mohammed and Ors. ((2022) 0 (SC) 1609): The Supreme Court deprecated the tendency to allege judicial bias merely because adverse orders are passed, stating such practices can demoralize judicial officers.

Section 1 of the Judicial Officers Protection Act, 1850: This act provides immunity to judicial officers for acts done in good faith in the discharge of their judicial duties.

The High Court reiterated:

"It is expected from the lawyers to maintain all the restraint and not make allegations against a Presiding Officer."

Final Decision and Implications

Finding the writ petition devoid of merit, the High Court dismissed it along with all pending applications. A cost of Rs. 10,000 was imposed on the petitioner, to be deposited with the Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority, Jodhpur.

This judgment serves as a stern reminder that while judicial orders are open to challenge through established legal channels, making unsubstantiated allegations against judicial officers is unacceptable and undermines the very foundation of the justice system. It reinforces the principle that grievances against judicial orders must be addressed through appeals or revisions, not by attacking the integrity of the judge.