Legal Reference Library

In response to an application related to Supriya Paul vs State, the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court has come down strongly against the petitioner and their advocate for filling multiple petition for similar relief. The Hon'ble court while issuing rule of contempt against Petitioners said that the Petitioners’ conduct amounted to an “abuse of process of Court”. The Petitioners had demanded transfer of criminal cases to any other competent Court, even though a similar relief had been rejected in earlier proceedings. The Court further referred the matter to the Bar Council of West Bengal for initiating appropriate disciplinary proceeding against the lawyer, Mr. Kamal Kanti Kar “for repeatedly instituting frivolous and vexatious proceeding for and on behalf of his client for the selfsame relief when such relief had been turned down by this Court with costs in an earlier proceeding wherein he had represented the said litigants.”

The High court of Andhra Pradesh has observed that mere apprehension of litigants that they might not get justice from a particular judge, because the judge dismissed around 45 appeals within three days, is not a ground to transfer the case to another court. The Appellants before an Additional District Court had approached the High Court by preferring a Transfer petition stating that presiding Judge of the Court, wherein their appeal is pending, had dismissed 45 appeals in a span of three days without taking up final hearing in a proper manner and that therefore, there is a reasonable apprehension in their minds that they may not get justice from the judge. Dismissing the petitions, the bench said: “The transfer petitions are completely devoid of merits and were liable to be thrown out without much ado, on the short ground that the dismissal of 45 appeals in a span of three days can hardly give rise to an apprehension of the nature pleaded by the petitioners. When Courts, which move at...