‘Judge must be beyond all reasonable reproach’, says HC; sets aside regular bail order passed by Magistrate

Holding that a judge must remain “a figure beyond all reasonable reproach” and that even a perception of bias vitiates adjudication, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has set aside regular bail order passed by a Magistrate related to the accused.

Justice Sumeet Goel described the case as one raising issues “of the gravest jurisprudential import” as it concerned allegations of judicial bias striking “at the very root of the administration of justice”. The Bench, at the same time, declined the petitioner-complainant’s plea for suitable actions against the Magistrate as the “matter is being ruminated upon on the administrative side by this Court”.

The direction came just over a month after the Bench sought comments from Ambala Judicial Magistrate First Class following allegations that she was related to accused to whom she granted bail. Taking up the bail cancellation petition filed though counsel Fateh Saini, Justice Goel described judicial neutrality as the “linchpin of the rule of law” before asserting that adjudication must be conducted “sine ira et studio” or without anger and passion and free from all taint of personal predilection

Referring to the cardinal maxim “nemo judex causa sua” or “no one is judge in his own case”, Justice Goel asserted: “A Judge having personal stake/interest in the subject matter or the outcome, howsoever small, is viewed by the law with inherent suspicion, as it adversely compromises the integrity of judicial process.”

The Bench added that the legitimacy of the justice system rested not only on correct decisions but on the perception of fairness. Referring to the maxim “justice must not only be done, but manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done”, Justice Goel asserted: “If real likelihood/apprehension of bias is shown to exist -- even if the decision were otherwise factually accurate and legally impeccable -- the consequent adjudication is deemed vitiated in toto and stands non est in law. Ergo, it is the taint of perceived partiality/bias/prejudice and not necessarily the existence of actual judicial malice which acts as the fatal flaw”.

Justice Goel, at the same time, cautioned that supervisory courts must protect judicial officers against frivolous imputations. Any allegation of bias must be supported by “concrete and cogent material” and warned that entertaining speculative claims might “yield anarchy in the adjudicatory process” by enabling disgruntled litigants to indulge in “court/forum hunting”, a tendency that “needs to be curbed with an iron hand”

Turning to the material placed before it, Justice Goel observed that the petitioner-complainant had specifically asserted that the Magistrate was a relative of the accused. This stand, the State’s compliance report dated May 19, the preliminary inquiry report of Ambala District and Sessions Judge and the Magistrate’s comments — all placed before the court in a sealed cover— “indubitably tend to reflect” that the Magistrate and the accused were related, though “apparently distant ones”

“Where the Judge/Magistrate is conscious of or apprised of such a connection, which has the potential of creating apprehension of biasness/prejudice in the minds of a reasonable person, the paramount duty of judicial propriety compels an immediate and sua sponte exercise of recusal from the proceedings,” Justice Goel observed.

Despite holding the order vitiated by bias-in-law, Justice Goel did not immediately send the accused to custody. Noting the two-year lapse since bail was granted, the Bench held that abrupt cancellation at this stage “would be incongruous with the broader cause of equity and fairness that the judicial system is bound to uphold”.

The accused was permitted to remain on the same bail bonds until December 23 and was directed to appear before the CJM/Duty Magistrate, Ambala, by that date. His fresh bail plea, if filed, was directed to be decided on the same day.