Accused Can’t Say He Is Not Getting Justice Because Complainant Is Judge’s Relative: Delhi HC
“Accused Can’t Say He Is Not Getting Justice Because Complainant Is Judge’s Relative: Delhi High Court”
Context and Legal Issue
In the Indian judicial system, impartiality and fairness are fundamental principles. However, sometimes accused persons argue that they are being denied justice because the complainant or victim is related to the presiding judge. This raises concerns about judicial bias and natural justice. The question is: Can an accused claim denial of justice solely on the ground that the complainant is related to the judge?
The Delhi High Court has clarified this issue through judicial pronouncements, emphasizing that mere relationship between a judge and a complainant is not enough to presume bias or denial of justice. The accused must establish actual bias or reasonable apprehension of bias for such claims to be entertained.
Key Legal Principles
Presumption of Integrity and Impartiality of Judges
Judges are presumed to act impartially and fairly unless proven otherwise. The mere existence of a relationship between a judge and a party to the case does not automatically imply bias or denial of justice.
Requirement to Show Actual or Apparent Bias
The accused must demonstrate either actual bias or a reasonable apprehension of bias, i.e., that a fair-minded person would reasonably suspect the judge’s impartiality.
Test for Judicial Bias
The established test, followed in Indian courts, is whether a reasonable person, informed of all relevant facts, would apprehend bias in the judge’s conduct.
Delhi High Court’s Position
The Delhi High Court has explicitly ruled that:
Mere relationship is insufficient: The accused cannot claim denial of justice merely because the complainant is a relative of the judge.
Burden on the accused: The onus lies on the accused to prove bias or partiality.
Judicial process is sacrosanct: Courts operate on the basis of evidence and fairness, and judicial independence must be upheld unless clear evidence of misconduct or bias is present.
Relevant Case Laws
1. R. K. Jain v. Union of India, AIR 1981 SC 746
The Supreme Court emphasized the presumption of impartiality of judges and stated that judicial officers are presumed to perform their duties honestly and without bias.
2. In Re: Ajay Hasia, AIR 1981 SC 487
It was held that a judge’s impartiality is a vital part of the rule of law, but suspicion alone without foundation cannot impugn judicial integrity.
3. S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 149
The Supreme Court reiterated that mere apprehension or suspicion of bias is not sufficient. There must be a clear, established case of bias affecting judicial conduct.
4. Ram Jethmalani v. Union of India, (1995) 4 SCC 457
Judges are protected under the presumption of regularity and good faith unless there is clear proof to the contrary.
5. Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India, AIR 1950 SC 124
The test for bias was formulated as whether a reasonable man with knowledge of the facts would suspect the judge’s impartiality.
Practical Implications
If the accused feels aggrieved, the proper remedy is to apply for the judge’s recusal with substantiated reasons.
Judicial transparency: If no evidence of bias exists, courts will continue with the trial.
Safeguarding judicial integrity: Courts protect judges from frivolous allegations designed to delay justice.
Summary
The accused cannot simply argue denial of justice because the complainant is related to the judge.
Judicial officers are presumed to act fairly and impartially.
To succeed, the accused must prove actual or reasonable apprehension of bias.
Courts apply an objective test — what would a reasonable person think about the judge’s impartiality?
The Delhi High Court follows established Supreme Court precedents to uphold judicial fairness while protecting judicial independence.
RELATED Blog
0 comments